turkish elementary student teachers’ epistemological beliefs and moral reasoning
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [McGill University Library]On: 27 September 2013, At: 08:52Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
European Journal of Teacher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cete20
Turkish elementary student teachers’epistemological beliefs and moralreasoningMustafa Sami Topcu aa Department of Elementary Science Teacher Education, YuzuncuYil University, Van, TurkeyPublished online: 06 Jan 2011.
To cite this article: Mustafa Sami Topcu (2011) Turkish elementary student teachers’epistemological beliefs and moral reasoning, European Journal of Teacher Education, 34:1, 99-125,DOI: 10.1080/02619768.2010.534132
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2010.534132
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 &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
European Journal of Teacher EducationVol. 34, No. 1, February 2011, 99–125
ISSN 0261-9768 print/ISSN 1469-5928 online© 2011 Association for Teacher Education in EuropeDOI: 10.1080/02619768.2010.534132http://www.informaworld.com
Turkish elementary student teachers’ epistemological beliefs and moral reasoning
Mustafa Sami Topcu*
Department of Elementary Science Teacher Education, Yuzuncu Yil University, Van, TurkeyTaylor and FrancisCETE_A_534132.sgm10.1080/02619768.2010.534132European Journal of Teacher Education0261-9768 (print)/1469-5928 (online)Original Article2010Taylor & Francis341000000February 2010Dr. [email protected]
The purpose of the present study was to explore the relationships among Turkishelementary student teachers’ epistemological beliefs and moral reasoning, and todetermine which types of epistemological beliefs elementary student teachersexhibit. The findings of the present study demonstrated that epistemologicalbeliefs did not make a unique contribution to moral reasoning and studentteachers’ epistemological beliefs developed as more or less independent beliefs.The factor analyses results suggest that multidimensional theory is moreappropriate than unidimensional theory in explaining student teachers’epistemological beliefs.
Keywords: elementary student teachers; epistemological beliefs; moral reasoning
Introduction
The beliefs about the nature of knowledge and learning refer to epistemologicalbeliefs (Hofer and Pintrich 1997). Recently, research on epistemological beliefs hasbeen extended to pre-service and in-service teachers (Chan and Elliot 2002, 2004).Elementary student teachers’ beliefs about the nature and sources of knowledge andlearning have become the traditional focus of teacher education pedagogy (Mintchikand Farmer 2009). It is important to explore these beliefs within teacher educationprogrammes and develop them because these beliefs influence academic performance(Dweck and Leggett 1988; Ryan 1984; Schommer 1993; Shoenfeld 1983), learningstrategies (Cano 2005), interpretation of information (Ryan 1984; Schommer 1990),moral reasoning (Walker, Rowland, and Boyes 1991) and attitudes towards school(Schommer and Walker 1997). The more students believe in certain knowledge, themore they are able to draw exact conclusions from tentative text (Kardash and Scholes1996; Schommer 1990). The more students believe in fixed ability, the less theyappreciate schooling (Schommer and Walker 1997) or have patience to solve difficultacademic tasks (Dweck and Leggett 1988). The previous literature also declared thatepistemological beliefs are a crucial multidimensional and cognitive construct thatmay influence teachers’ educational and classroom practices at the behaviour level(Jones and Carter 2006) as well as their decision-making about what and how to teach(Schraw and Olafson 2002; Schommer-Aikins 2004). Hashweh (1996) found thatteachers whose epistemological beliefs are consistent with a constructivist approachused more instructional strategies that were better integrated, and these teachers madea significant effort to activate conceptual changes in students. Schommer-Aikins(2002) also reported that students oriented to a belief in complex and changedknowledge used more instructional strategies and were better at problem-solving than
*Email: [email protected]
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
08:
52 2
7 Se
ptem
ber
2013
100 M.S. Topcu
students oriented to a belief in simple and unchanging knowledge. Teacher educatorsand researchers claim that teachers’ beliefs shape their approach and practical theoriesin classroom teaching, influencing their instructional strategies and performance in theclassroom (Cheng et al. 2009). Johnston, Woodside-Jiron, and Day (2001) stated thatteachers having different epistemological beliefs behave differently toward studentsand organise instruction differently. Teachers whose epistemological beliefs areconsistent with a constructivist approach pay more attention to student discussion,interaction, and problem-solving as opposed to teachers whose epistemological beliefsare consistent with a traditional (realistic) approach. There is a dual relationshipbetween epistemological beliefs and instruction. ‘It seems plausible that teachers’epistemological beliefs influence instruction and assessment. Instruction and assess-ment, in turn, are likely to influence students’ developing epistemological beliefs’(Schommer-Aikins 2004, 27). Howard and colleagues (2000) engaged 40 experiencedteachers in constructivist teaching practices; they found that the training influencedteachers’ epistemological beliefs in simple and certain knowledge and improvedteachers’ beliefs about the necessity of student-centred learning. If a teacher givesfacts to students quickly, without synthesis and application, the students may believethat knowledge consists of isolated facts gained in a short time (Schommer-Aikins2004). Enriching understanding about epistemological beliefs and the extent to whichinitial teacher education programmes can influence student teachers’ beliefs and class-room practices are of special concern in teacher education. From a theoretical perspec-tive, such beliefs are also considered an important component of teachers’pedagogical content knowledge (Gess-Newsome and Lederman 2002). Teachers’decisions of how to present subject matter have been shown to be mediated by theirbeliefs about the nature of the discipline and knowledge within that discipline(Edmondson and Novak 1993). The researcher asserts, therefore, that it is critical forteacher educators to understand student teachers’ epistemological beliefs, given theinfluence these have on their learning as well as on their future teaching, and torecognise the potential role of teacher education programmes in shaping students’epistemologies (Hofer 2004).
Walker, Rowland, and Boyes (1991) stated that epistemological beliefs wererelated to moral reasoning. In their research, the participants with low scores on epis-temological beliefs scored higher on moral reasoning. Moreover, Curtis, Billingslea,and Wilson (1988), Presley (1985), and Bendixen, Schraw, and Dunkle (1998)reported that principled moral reasoning scores among students were inversely relatedto the omniscient authority dimension of epistemological beliefs. Research alsoshowed that sophisticated epistemological beliefs are positively related to academicachievement, critical thinking, and problem-solving abilities in educational settings(Phillips 2001; Schommer, Crouse, and Rhodes 1992; Schommer-Aikins, Duell, andHutter 2005). If moral reasoning develops concurrently with these cognitive skills,positive relationships should be found between epistemological beliefs and moralreasoning (Mintchik and Farmer 2009). Such a finding about student teachers wouldsupport previous results in which epistemological beliefs have been related to moralreasoning (Bendixen et al. 1998; King and Kitchener 1994). Although the researchersreported the relationships among beliefs about authority (Laupa 1991; Turiel 1994),knowledge (Damon 1988) and moral reasoning, further research is still necessary toinvestigate the relationship between individual epistemological beliefs and moralreasoning, especially in a teacher education context. In light of the previous literature,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
08:
52 2
7 Se
ptem
ber
2013
European Journal of Teacher Education 101
the researcher expected that individuals who scored high on the simple knowledgedimension of epistemological beliefs would score low on the Defining Issues Test(DIT) used to explore moral reasoning levels of individuals because they would prefersimple rather than complex solutions (Bendixen et al. 1998; Piaget 1965; Walker,Rowland, and Boyes 1991). ‘Individuals who endorse simple knowledge may be lesswilling to consider complex solutions to moral dilemmas or may attempt to recast theproblem itself in a more simple light’ (Bendixen, Schraw, and Dunkle 1998, 189).Related to another dimension of epistemological beliefs, the researcher expected thatstudent teachers who depended on authority in their decision-making would have lowscores for moral reasoning because moral standards are taken from external ratherthan internal sources (Curtis et al. 1988; Presley 1985; Turiel 1994). Regarding thequick learning dimension of epistemological beliefs, the researcher expected thatstudents might believe that complex problems could be resolved quickly and that thisway of thinking would restrain a thoughtful analysis of moral problems (Schoenfeld1983).
Because of a high degree of agreement on the existence of the relationshipbetween moral reasoning and the dimensions of epistemological beliefs (e.g., simpleknowledge, omniscient authority, and quick learning) in the previous research, therelationship between epistemological beliefs and moral reasoning could be expected.On the other hand, in a business research context studied by Mintchik and Farmer(2009), the researchers reported that there was not any significant relationshipbetween epistemological beliefs and moral reasoning, and they claimed that bothrepresent different benchmarks of cognitive development. It is clear that there isinconsistency in the understanding of the relationship between these concepts in thecurrent literature.
Moral reasoning is used by students to make decisions about complex, ill-definedissues such as the cases presented in the DIT, environmental problems, biotechnology,and human genetics. These issues involve moral and ethical considerations (Evans2002; Pedretti 1999; Zeidler 1984) and ‘objective, prescriptive, and generalizablestandards’ (Sadler and Zeidler 2004, 6). Schommer (1990, 1993) also stated that ill-defined cognitive tasks were related to epistemological beliefs. Since epistemologicalbeliefs and moral reasoning are related to cognitive development and decision-makingskills of the students about ill-defined cognitive tasks and there is an inconsistencyabout the existence of the relationship between epistemological beliefs and moralreasoning in the current literature, it is necessary to enlighten the nature of thisrelationship. The conclusions of previous research in psychology and business are thestarting point of this investigation, and present research would expect significantassociations between epistemological beliefs and moral reasoning. Thus, one of theaims of the present research is to reduce or resolve previous inconsistencies througheducational research. If the researcher does not find relationships among moralreasoning and epistemological beliefs, the researcher will propose that researchersneed different methodological methods to improve epistemological beliefs or moralreasoning.
The main purpose of the current research was to explore the relationships betweenmoral reasoning and another benchmark of cognitive development: epistemologicalbeliefs in the context of educational research. Specifically, the researcher focused ontwo research questions that have not been addressed adequately in previous research.First, what types of epistemological beliefs (omniscient authority, simple knowledge,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
08:
52 2
7 Se
ptem
ber
2013
102 M.S. Topcu
certain knowledge, innate ability, or quick learning) do elementary student teachers(ESTs) exhibit? Before exploring the relationships between epistemological beliefsand moral reasoning, it is necessary to investigate such dimensions of epistemologicalbeliefs. Second, what are the relationships between ESTs’ epistemological beliefs andtheir moral reasoning?
Moral reasoning
The most prevalent moral development theory in the fields of psychology and educa-tion has been Lawrence Kohlberg’s cognitive moral development theory. This theory‘focuses on the moral thought process, assessing how individuals think about an ethi-cal dilemma’ (Mintchik and Farmer 2009, 260). Piaget (1932) was the pioneeringresearcher who reported the concept of moral development. Kohlberg extendedPiaget’s moral development theory, proposing that moral development is a universalcognitive–continual process that develops in particular stages. Each stage has uniquecharacteristics to identify individuals’ moral development. Kohlberg’s theory of moraldevelopment suggested six stages within three different levels. In the preconventionalmorality level (first and second stages), obeying rules is important as a means to avoidpunishment. In the conventional morality level (third and fourth stages), individualsconsider society’s views and expectations to judge the morality of actions. In the post-conventional morality level (fifth and sixth stages), individuals’ own perspectives maycome before society’s view; they may not obey rules inconsistent with their own prin-ciples. In order to assess an individual’s moral development, Nisan and Kohlberg(1982) developed the Moral Judgment Interview (MJI), a crucial and worldwidemethod to identify moral reasoning that has been used by many researchers in moraleducation research. The MJI is based upon people’s arguments and positions inresponse to moral dilemmas. Each moral dilemma involves contradictory opinions,and an individual should select or support one of these opinions. The dilemmasinclude six values and three cases: life and law; punishment and morality–conscience;agreement and authority (Nisan and Kohlberg 1982). Although this instrument wasused by many researchers, several critiques were raised by the researchers about thismethod in the course of time (see Froming and McColgan 1979; Rest et al. 1974;Schaefli, Rest, and Thoma 1985; Shweder, Mahapatra, and Miller 1987). For example,Froming and McColgan (1979) reported that evaluating the findings about MJT iscomplicated and subjective. Therefore, the researchers tried to develop different andnew methods to identify moral reasoning (Rest et al. 1974). These new methods wereMa’s Moral Development Test (1989), Gibbs and colleagues’ Social ReflectionMeasure (SRM) (2007), and Lind’s Moralisches Urteil (MUT) (2009). Although thesetests were used in some aspects of research, one of the most prominent and widelyused instruments developed by Rest (1975, 1984, 1994) was the Defining Issues Test(DIT). This test is a multiple-choice test based upon Kohlberg’s moral developmenttheory (Moon 1986; Schaefli, Rest, and Thoma 1985). The DIT contains six cases, andeach case includes 20 statements. Four of the 12 statements in the instrument arerelated to the post-conventional level of moral reasoning. Although several of thesame stories were used in both the instruments of MJT and DIT (Froming and McCo-lgan 1979; Rest, Davison, and Robbins 1978), the DIT has more advantages than theMJT in terms of its ease of use, verbal comprehensibility and consistency (Nichols andDay 1982; Martin, Shafto, and Van Deinse 1977). Thus, the DIT has been used by
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
08:
52 2
7 Se
ptem
ber
2013
European Journal of Teacher Education 103
researchers in many different disciplines such as business (Herrington and Weaven2008) and psychology (Bendixen, Schraw, and Dunkle 1998). Assessing students’responses on the Likert scale results in a P score, which refers to the level of post-conventional reasoning of the respondents. An individual’s P score depends on thenumber of principled items that the individual selected from the instrument for eachdilemma and the relative ranks of importance the individual assigned to thesestatements (Mintchik and Farmer 2009).
Epistemological beliefs
‘Epistemology’ is a discipline that explores the origin, nature, limits, methods andjustification of knowledge (Hofer 2002). Epistemological beliefs are individuals’beliefs about the nature of knowledge (Schommer 1990; Schraw and Olafson 2002).The studies on epistemological beliefs started with Perry (1968) whose study focusedon the epistemological development of Harvard University students. Perry and somesubsequent researchers (Belenky et al. 1986; Boyes and Chandler 1992; King andKitchener 1994) used the qualitative paradigm, in which they mostly used interviewsto describe students’ epistemological beliefs. Before 1990, research on epistemologi-cal beliefs was only done by professional psychologists through interviews, the onlyresearch technique and a time-consuming tool to administer and score (Mintchik andFarmer 2009). In 1990, Schommer used a quantitative research paradigm andpublished an instrument to measure multidimensional epistemological beliefs.Schommer’s Epistemological Questionnaire (SEQ) has been used by many research-ers to explore the relationships among epistemological beliefs and self-efficacy beliefs(Yilmaz-Tuzun and Topcu 2008), problem-solving ability (Schommer, Crouse, andRhodes 1992), argumentation (Kuhn 1991), and the preferences for learning environ-ments (Chin-Chung and Chuang 2005; Yilmaz-Tuzun and Topcu 2010). Because ofsuch common use of the SEQ in the previous literature, the researcher also used theSEQ to explore ESTs’ epistemological beliefs. The SEQ has five epistemologicalbelief dimensions: (a) the stability of knowledge ranging from unchanging knowledgeto tentative knowledge (certain knowledge); (b) the structure of knowledge rangingfrom isolated bits and pieces to integrated concepts (simple knowledge); (c) the sourceof knowledge ranging from omniscient authority to reason and empirical evidence(omniscient authority); (d) the speed of learning ranging from quick or not-at-all togradual (quick learning); and (e) the ability to learn ranging from fixed at birth toimprovable (innate ability). With the presentation of these dimensions, Schommerdefined personal epistemologies as collections of beliefs. In other words, a multidi-mensional theory was proposed to define epistemological beliefs. Schommersuggested that if a person develops a dimension of epistemological beliefs, he/she mayor may not develop other dimension(s). For example, while one student is good atdeveloping sophisticated beliefs in the dimension of ‘quick learning’, this student maynot develop sophisticated beliefs about ‘innate ability’ (Yilmaz-Tuzun and Topcu2008). In other words, this student believes that learning is a gradually developingprocess rather than a fast process, but the same student believes that the mentalabilities present since birth are more important than personal effort or hard work tolearn a new subject (Yilmaz-Tuzun and Topcu 2008).
In contrast to a multidimensional epistemological theory, some researchers (seeKing and Kitchener 2004; Perry 1968) suggested that epistemological belief is a
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
08:
52 2
7 Se
ptem
ber
2013
104 M.S. Topcu
unidimensional construct that develops in parallel with individual cognitive develop-ment. In the unidimensional theory, there is an assumption that if one dimension ofepistemological beliefs (e.g., quick learning) develops, the other dimensions will alsodevelop. However, in multidimensional theory, there is an assumption that if onedimension of epistemological beliefs develops, the other dimensions may or may notdevelop (Schommer-Aikins 2004). Although several researchers used the unidimen-sional theory to explain students’ epistemological beliefs, the most recent researchtrend showed that researchers mostly described students’ epistemological beliefs byusing SEQ and the multidimensional theory. Schommer studied middle school(Schommer-Aikins et al. 2000, 2005), high school (Schommer 1993), undergraduate(Schommer 1990; Schommer et al. 1992), and graduate students (Schommer et al.1992) and concluded that epistemological beliefs consist of much more than two sub-categories, and those factors are independent from each other.
Elementary teacher education programmes in Turkey
Turkish ESTs are trained in faculties of education which offer four-year degreeprogrammes at state or private universities. Elementary teacher educationprogrammes consist of core components: pedagogical content knowledge, subjectmatter content knowledge, and field experience. During their education, ESTs takecourses that aim to develop their subject matter and pedagogical content knowledge.In the first three years, ESTs take courses regarding teaching and learning such aseducational psychology and classroom management, subject matter knowledgecourses such as physics and biology, and pedagogical content knowledge courses suchas science and mathematics teaching methods. Moreover, they take practicum coursesin the last year of their study to acquire experience in the field. The Higher EducationCouncil in Turkey signed a protocol with the Ministry of National Education for twoteaching practicum courses in 2007: ‘Practice Teaching I’ for the first term of thefourth year and ‘Practice Teaching II’ for the second term of the fourth year. Thesecourses are compulsory and ESTs take these courses in their final year of study. Forboth courses, ESTs are assigned to primary schools (Grade 1–5) for six hours a weekduring the 11-week period of the semester. By facilitating school visits and providingpractical classroom teaching opportunities, these field experiences were designed toimprove better connection between theory and practice. The main purpose of thisplacement is to help ESTs gain first-hand experience of the teaching profession andschool environments. For Practice Teaching I, ESTs mostly observe their mentors’teaching methods and classroom management skills (Boz 2008). Towards the end oftheir school placement, the students become more directly involved as teachers in theclassroom environment (Boz 2008). For Practice Teaching II, ESTs observe and eval-uate mentors’ skills and become more actively involved in teaching; for example, theymight teach a subject matter, design a test, and evaluate its results at the cooperatingschool (Boz 2008). At the same time, mentors observe ESTs’ teaching and classroommanagement skills and then provide feedback. The goal of feedback is to help ESTsto improve their classroom management and teaching proficiency. At the end of theirpractice, ESTs must prepare a portfolio including their observations and reflections ontopics such as the structure and schedule of a school day, the planning of lessons,classroom management, and teaching methods and assessment techniques to evaluatestudent learning (Eren and Tezel 2010).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
08:
52 2
7 Se
ptem
ber
2013
European Journal of Teacher Education 105
Study purpose and rationale
This study advances teacher education research in three ways. Firstly, previousresearch in psychology, accounting and business demonstrated that there is an incon-sistency about the nature of the relationship between moral reasoning and epistemo-logical beliefs. While research in psychology suggests that sophisticatedepistemological beliefs are related to higher moral reasoning (Bendixen, Schraw, andDunkle 1998; Walker, Rowland, and Boyes 1991), research in accounting and busi-ness reported that there is not any significant relationship between moral reasoningand epistemological beliefs (Mintchik and Farmer 2009). Similar to these areas, ineducational settings, the inconsistency and validity of these conclusions are alsodebatable. Not much research has been done with ESTs. For that reason, the presentstudy aims to explore the relationships between ESTs’ moral reasoning and epistemo-logical beliefs in an educational context.
The second reason for the study is that previous research suggested that epistemo-logical beliefs vary across disciplinary areas (Palmer and Marra 2004) and knowledgedomains (Schommer-Aikins, Duell, and Barker 2003). Thus, considering psychology(Bendixen, Schraw, and Dunkle 1998) and business (Mintchik and Farmer 2009)research, the present study made a replication study using a different context, whichis an educational setting.
Another reason for the study is that Schommer (1994) suggested that epistemolog-ical beliefs are influenced by educational context. Moral reasoning may also beaffected by educational context. Whereas most research regarding epistemologicalbeliefs and moral reasoning has been conducted in Western contexts, the present inves-tigation was situated in Turkey, which is a candidate member of the European Unionand thereby offers a considerably different educational setting. Furthermore, sincethere are not many studies about the relationships between individuals’ epistemologi-cal development and moral reasoning in Turkey and about how the Turkish elementaryteacher education system contributes to epistemology and morality, it is crucial toinvestigate Turkish ESTs’ epistemological beliefs and morality. The results of thepresent study will inform us of the current status of ESTs’ epistemological beliefs andtheir relation to moral reasoning in light of recent reform efforts taken by Turkey.
Research design
Both quantitative and qualitative methods were used to explore ESTs’ epistemologicalbeliefs and moral reasoning. As a type of mixed-methods research, quantitative-dominant mixed-methods research (Sullivan 2009) guided the present study. Thismethod is used for the interpretation and clarification of quantitative data. In thesections below, the researcher describes methods (quantitative and qualitative) includ-ing research participants, instruments, data collection, and analysis procedures.
Quantitative method
Instruments
Two quantitative instruments were used in the present study: the Schommer Episte-mological Questionnaire (SEQ) and the Defining Issues Test (DIT). Firstly, the SEQwas used to evaluate individuals’ epistemological beliefs. This instrument requests
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
08:
52 2
7 Se
ptem
ber
2013
106 M.S. Topcu
participants to evaluate 63 statements about the nature of learning and knowledgeusing a five-point scale from one (strongly disagree) to five (strongly agree). There-fore, a participant who gets a higher score from the survey is thought to have a simpleror less sophisticated belief. The SEQ consists of 12 subsets, and for each subset, thenumber of items changes. The SEQ was translated into Turkish and the reliability andvalidity of the instrument have been evaluated in several studies (Topcu and Yilmaz-Tuzun 2006; Yilmaz-Tuzun and Topcu 2008). Similar to the studies of Schommer(1990) and Schommer et al. (1992), the 12 subsets presented in Table 1, which shouldbe categorised under hypothetical dimensions, were used in the present study.Depending on Schommer’s theoretical approach of epistemology, the researcher triedto situate these 12 subsets into their best defined hypothetical dimensions. During thefactor analysis, she tried to discover the degree to which these 12 subsets loaded intotheir hypothetical dimensions.
The second quantitative instrument, the Defining Issues Test (DIT), is based uponthe Kohlberg’s moral reasoning theory, which includes six stages of moral develop-ment (Rest 1986). Participants read a story including a moral dilemma and then shouldmake a judgement about this dilemma (see Appendix A for the stories). Each caseincludes one dilemma and is followed by 12 statements. The statements have five-point options for response. Participants fill out the five-point Likert scale based ontheir judgements and select the most important four statements among the 12 state-ments based on their judgements. The 12 statements for each story represent differentstages of moral development. Individuals first read a dilemma, then rank order 12statements that propose different solutions to targeted dilemmas. Some solutionsregarding these dilemmas are assumed to represent different levels of moral reason-ing. P scores are derived from participants’ rank orderings by calculating the ratio oftheir selection of statements related to stage 5(a), 5(b), and 6. Cesur (1997) translatedfour stories to Turkish to make them compatible with a Turkish context. This Turkishversion of the instrument was also validated by the researchers (Cesur and Topcu2010) and used by many researchers in Turkey (see Cesur and Topcu 2010; Haskuka,Sunar, and Alp 2008; Tolunay 2001). The Turkish version of the instrument has beenchecked by two social psychologists for the content and face validity of the DIT.
Table 1. Hypothetical dimensions and associated subsets of the epistemologicalquestionnaire.
Subset dimension Hypothetical dimensionNumber of statement
in questionnaire
Simple knowledge Seek single answersAvoid integration
118
Certain knowledge Avoid ambiguityKnowledge is certain
56
Omniscient authority Do not criticise authorityDepend on authority
66
Innate ability Cannot learn how to learnSuccess is unrelated to hard workAbility to learn is innate
544
Quick learning Learning is quickLearn first timeConcentrated effort is a waste of time
532
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
08:
52 2
7 Se
ptem
ber
2013
European Journal of Teacher Education 107
During the translation, some names and jobs were changed to make them compatiblewith a Turkish context. Moreover, this version of the DIT was checked by one educa-tional psychologist and an English language expert in terms of language and contentof stories and statements. A back translation method was also used to handle the diffi-culties stemming from the translation process. As a result, the Turkish version of theDIT, consisting of four stories and 48 statements (12 for each story) was used in thecurrent study.
Participants
The sample consisted of 96 ESTs: 27 females and 69 males. All participants wereelementary education student teachers who would teach first grade through fifth gradestudents. ESTs ranged in age from 20 to 25, and all of them were in their final year ofthe course. Data collection was performed during the spring semester of 2009. Quan-titative data were collected during a two-week period. During the first week, theresearcher administrated a 63-item Schommer Epistemological Questionnaire (SEQ;Schommer 1990) to ESTs at a large eastern university. During the second week, aDefining Issues Test (DIT; Rest 1986) was administrated to the same students in thesame class. A research assistant from the university administered instruments (SEQand DIT) successively. The assistant explained the purpose of the research to thestudents in classes, and invited them to participate in the study voluntarily. Whileparticipants completed questionnaires, the assistant answered any clarifying questionsthat the participants had. On average, the data collection sessions lasted 20 minutesfor each instrument administration. The participants completed both the SEQ and DITand provided demographic information. However, 10 students were dropped from thesample because they did not complete the SEQ or DIT within the specified time ormissed several questions.
Data analysis
In the first phase of the quantitative data analysis, a factor analysis was performed tofind out the factor structure of the SEQ for Turkish ESTs. The results of the factoranalysis allowed us to compare the results of the present study with previous researchfindings. In the second phase of the quantitative data analysis, the aim was to explorethe relationships between moral reasoning and subsets of epistemological beliefs. Inorder to test this relationship, the Pearson Product Moment Correlation method wasused, and the relationships between P-score and each sub-dimension of epistemolog-ical beliefs were calculated. For all quantitative analyses, the Statistical Package forthe Social Sciences version 13.0 for Windows was used.
Qualitative method
Data collection and participants
After the implementation of quantitative instruments, semi-structured interviews wereconducted with the questions presented in Appendix B to examine in depth the under-standing of ESTs’ epistemological beliefs. The participants were asked to explicatetheir epistemological beliefs in light of their own life experiences. At the time of datacollection, the participants had experienced four years of the teacher education
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
08:
52 2
7 Se
ptem
ber
2013
108 M.S. Topcu
programme. Three pilot interviews were conducted to check the perspectives and thenthe interview questions were revised accordingly. The researcher benefited from thestudies of Schommer (1990) and Cheng et al. (2009) in creating an epistemologicalbeliefs interview protocol. Fourteen ESTs were randomly selected for the interviews.In addition, these ESTs volunteered for the interviews after being selected by theresearchers. Each EST was also assigned a pseudonym. Each interview lasted about25 minutes and was audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim.
Data analysis
Two researchers organised the data emerging from the transcripts. The researchersanalysed each transcript independently and took notes about potential categories. Thedevelopment of coding categories involved an iterative process that considered therelevant literature and explored the interview data. The interview data were codedwith a tentatively predefined set of codes. The researchers compared taxonomiescreated through their independent reviews and agreed on a consensus list of categories(these categories are described in-depth in the results section). The rate of consistencybetween the two researchers in deciding categories exceeded 85%. The initialdisagreements were discussed by the researchers and were easily negotiated. Althoughthe independent analyses performed by two researchers provided a form of investiga-tor triangulation, another researcher reviewed all of the final analyses for consistencyand coherence. The combination of triangulation and peer debriefing supports thevalidity of the qualitative analysis (Lincoln and Guba 1985).
Results
Factor analysis of the Schommer epistemological questionnaire (SEQ)
The results of factor analysis enabled the researchers to find out the number and thecharacter of the factors that represent students’ responses in the SEQ. Before perform-ing the factor analysis, 12 subset scores were calculated with the mean scores ofrelated subset items. These subset scores were used as variables in the 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 57.30% of the variance. Performing factor analysis produced four factorstructures in the data. Factors were named with the technique that Schommer (1990)used in her study. Schommer named each factor on the basis of high loadings ofsubsets of items. While naming the factors, she mostly considered the subsets thathave factor loadings approximate to or higher than 0.50. The same procedure wasfollowed in naming the factors of the present study.
In the current analysis, Factor 1 was named ‘Quick learning’, which includes thesubset dimensions of ‘Concentrated effort is a waste of time’ and ‘Learning is quick’.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 ‘Innate ability’, whichincludes the subset dimensions of ‘Success is unrelated to hard work’ and ‘Ability tolearn is innate’.
The values of variances and eigenvalues are presented in Table 2. The author firstused a varimax rotation principal factor analysis. The second factor analysis method
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
08:
52 2
7 Se
ptem
ber
2013
European Journal of Teacher Education 109
was an oblique rotation factor analysis. Since both analyses produced very similarresults, only a varimax rotation principal factor analysis was reported. The factor anal-ysis results in four factors: quick learning, certain knowledge, simple knowledge, andinnate ability. Inter-item reliabilities for items that compose each factor range from0.35 to 0.60. For the dimensions of the SEQ, Schommer (1990) and Yilmaz-Tuzunand Topcu (2008) have found this range in their studies to be between 0.51 and 0.78,and 0.25 to 0.60 successively.
Table 2 shows that epistemology dimensions (e.g., simple knowledge) did notsuccessfully load into their hypothesised dimension for some of the subsets. On thecontrary, most subset dimensions loaded to other factors. In addition, the results of theSEQ concerning the means and standard deviations of dimensions of epistemologicalbeliefs are presented in Table 3.
Quick learning
The mean score of quick learning (M = 2.32) shows that ESTs agreed that learning isa gradually developing process rather than a quick and sudden practice (see Table 3).The interview findings for the question: ‘Do you think learning process is a slowprocess or fast process of building up knowledge?’ (refer to Question 3 in AppendixB) are in line with the questionnaire findings and corroborate its details. This question
Table 2. Four factors with subsets of items of variables.
Subset dimension Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 3
Concentrated effort is a waste of time .842 −.013 −.139 .059Do not criticise authority .671 −.221 .102 .019Avoid integration .655 .097 .272 .186Cannot learn how to learn .651 −.310 .088 .303Avoid ambiguity −.142 .776 −.042 −.054Learning is quick .496 .508 .272 .030Depend on authority −.358 .408 −.087 −.100Seek single answers −.096 .118 .723 −.097Knowledge is certain .044 −.182 .719 .113Success is unrelated to hard work .066 −.226 .047 .851Learn the first time .390 .096 −.091 .534Ability to learn is innate .042 .420 .438 .474Eigenvalue 3.119 1.613 1.135 1.009% of variables 25.991 13.445 9.460 8.410
Table 3. Means and standard deviations of dimensions of epistemological beliefs.
Dimensions of epistemological beliefs Mean Standard deviation
Quick learning 2.32 0.41Certain knowledge 3.16 0.38Simple knowledge 2.96 0.49Innate ability 2.44 0.56
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
08:
52 2
7 Se
ptem
ber
2013
110 M.S. Topcu
is used to examine whether one would believe that learning is a quick and suddenprocess or a gradually developing process. All students affirmed that learning is a slowprocess. For example:
I think learning is a gradually developing process. Fast learning equals to memorisation.When we memorise knowledge quickly, we can forget it soonest. Permanent learning orsynthesising knowledge needs a long time and a systematic study. Based on my previousexperiences, fast learning makes a stress for my learning. When I try to learn quickly, Iam very tired of learning. Moreover, in our country, we need a systematic study at leastthree years for being successful in the national university entrance exam. (Participant 10)
Certain knowledge
The dimension of certain knowledge is about the stability of knowledge ranging fromunchanging knowledge to tentative knowledge. The mean score of certain knowledge(M = 3.16) indicated that ESTs considerably agree that knowledge remains unchangedand certain (see Table 3). The interview question is designed to explore whether onewould believe that knowledge is certain and unchanging in the world, or whetherknowledge is tentative and constantly evolving. The interview findings for thequestion: ‘Do you think knowledge changes, or it is something that does not change?Why do you think that?’ (refer to Question 4 in Appendix B) are not consistent withthe quantitative findings. Quantitative epistemological instrument questions may notbe understood correctly by ESTs because the translation of the English version of theepistemological belief questionnaire to Turkish may cause some loss in meaning.According to qualitative findings, the participants asserted two types of claims: thatknowledge changes or knowledge changes depending on the discipline. None claimedthat knowledge does not change. Overall, ESTs claimed that knowledge changes forthree reasons: new discoveries and innovations, changes in time and society, and thenature of disciplines. A considerable number of the participants (five) claimed that thechanging of knowledge depends on the discipline. In the excerpt below, and in othersnot presented here, many participants stated that while knowledge in the disciplines ofreligion and mathematics does not change, knowledge in science and sociology maychange:
I think that knowledge change depending on the nature of the discipline. While theknowledge changes for some disciplines, it does not change for some disciplines. Forexample, for the disciplines of religion and mathematics, the knowledge is fixed andsteady. In our religion discipline, we have stable and permanent beliefs that do neverchange. However, for the science and society disciplines, depending on the innovationsand new discoveries, I think knowledge can change. (Participant 8)
Simple knowledge
Simple knowledge goes into the domain of whether knowledge structure ranges fromisolated bits and pieces with one meaning to integrated concepts and multiple mean-ings. The mean score of the simple knowledge (M = 2.96) indicated that ESTs mostlyagree that knowledge consists of isolated bits and pieces rather than integratedconcepts and multiple meanings (see Table 3). The interviews provide furtherexplanation of the views of quantitative results and include a question about simpleknowledge: ‘Do you think most words have one clear meaning and most problems in
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
08:
52 2
7 Se
ptem
ber
2013
European Journal of Teacher Education 111
science have only one right answer? Why do you think that?’ (refer to Question 4 inAppendix B). Although all ESTs stated that words have more than one meaning, theirresponses about whether most problems in science have only one right answer varied.There were several reasons for ESTs doubting the right answers of the questions withtheir own personal experience or knowledge. Similar to the dimension of certainknowledge, a great majority of the participants supported the claim that problems haveone right answer, depending on the nature of the discipline. While many ESTs claimedthat most problems in social sciences and natural sciences have multiple solutions, thesame students asserted that the problems in mathematics have one solution. Thesample excerpt below illustrates these beliefs:
Yes I think that words have more than one meaning. Everyone can understand and eval-uate each word depending on their own experiences and previous knowledge. In dailylife, since we are observing several developments and discoveries in science in time, Iam not thinking that problems have one solution in science. In social sciences, there aremany psychological and sociological factors influencing human life, thus, problemsrelated to social science may not have only one solution. However, most of the problemsin mathematics have one solution because one solution regarding one problem inmathematics is accepted by all people. (Participant 7)
Innate ability
Overall, the quantitative and the qualitative results were consistent. Findings fromboth methods considerably indicated that ESTs perceive the effort put into learning asmore significant than innate ability. In terms of the quantitative results, the mean scoreof innate ability (M = 2.44) shows that ESTs did not completely agree that learningeffort is more significant than innate ability (see Table 3). However, we can easilyassert that ESTs exhibited more sophisticated epistemological beliefs in innate abilityin light of the qualitative findings. The interview findings for the question: ‘When youare learning a subject, what percentage will you attribute to your innate ability and toyour learning effort? Why do you think that? Do you believe that perseverance andhard work can overcome difficulties in learning?’ (refer to Question 1 in Appendix B)are in line with the survey findings. This question is used to examine whether onebelieves that learning is innate and fixed at birth or whether learning is improvablewith hard work and effort. The interview findings show that 11 of the 14 ESTsclaimed learning effort as more important, and eight of these 11 ESTs reasoned thatthey had learnt this from their own experiences and that others had learnt this fromother people’s experiences. Three of the 14 ESTs asserted that innate ability was morecrucial for learning. Similarly, two of these three ESTs reasoned that they had learntthis from their own experience and that others had learnt this from people’s experi-ences. The excerpt below and other similar statements reflect the belief that learningeffort is more important than innate ability, and all participants believed similarly thatlearning effort can help them to overcome difficulties:
My learning depends on 30% innate ability and 70% learning effort. In our society, Ithink learning effort or hard working is more important than innate ability. For example,after his success of the central university admission exam across the country, my brotherhas been accepted for one of the most prestigious universities in Turkey. However, sincehe does not study enough, he has not been graduated from this university for many years.At the first step, your innate ability may help achieve your some targets. However, if you
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
08:
52 2
7 Se
ptem
ber
2013
112 M.S. Topcu
want to continue your achievement, you should pay attention to your learning effort andhard working. Learning effort can help people to overcome difficulties. (Participant 6)
Elementary student teachers’ moral reasoning
Using the responses of the participants to DIT, moral reasoning scores (P scores) foreach person were calculated before the correlations between moral reasoning and epis-temological beliefs were performed. As noted before, a P score reflects the levels ofpost conventional reasoning (Stage 5 and 6) of the participants. A higher score on theprincipled moral reasoning task shows more sophisticated moral judgement. Themean P scores of the present study (M = 24) are lower than the mean P scores ofThorne’s (2000) (M = 32.8) and Mintchik and Farmer’s (2009) (M = 31) studiesconducted in the US and Canada with accounting students. Descriptive informationabout participants’ P scores in the present study in terms of gender and living environ-ment are introduced in Table 4. As observed in the table, female ESTs had higher Pscores than male students. This result is consistent with the finding of Bendixenet al.’s (1998) study in which female psychology university students had higher Pscores than male students. Moreover, as observed in the table, the ESTs living invillages had higher P scores than the ESTs living in cities or towns.
Correlations between epistemological beliefs and moral reasoning
The Pearson Product Moment Correlation method was used to explore relationshipsbetween epistemological beliefs and moral reasoning. Since both variables are contin-uous variables, this correlation method was suitable for this investigation. After
Table 4. Principled moral reasoning scores (P scores) of elementary student teachers.
Group N Group mean of P scores Standard deviation
GenderMaleFemale
6927
22.6925.73
1.581.93
Area of livingCityTownVillage
591324
22.8122.5026.55
1.384.112.62
Table 5. The correlation values among principled moral reasoning scores (P scores) and thefactors of epistemological beliefs.
Variables 1 2 3 4 5
P score –Quick learning −.031 –Certain knowledge −.140 .000 –Simple knowledge .119 .000 .000 –Innate ability −.109 .000 .000 .000 –
Note: All correlations were non-significant at the p < 0.05 level.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
08:
52 2
7 Se
ptem
ber
2013
European Journal of Teacher Education 113
performing factor analysis, four factor scores (quick learning, certain knowledge,simple knowledge, innate ability) were determined to characterise epistemologicalbeliefs. The assumption of normality for these factor scores was met, and there is alsono violation for the normality distribution of morality scores (P scores).
Table 5 summarises the relationships between epistemological beliefs and moralreasoning. Unfortunately, there were not any significant relationships between moralreasoning and one-factor scores of the epistemological beliefs.
Discussion
The purposes of the present study were to determine types of epistemological beliefsthat ESTs had and to explore any relationships among ESTs’ epistemological beliefsand moral reasoning. The SEQ revealed satisfactory results in defining epistemologi-cal belief dimensions in Turkey, similar to previous studies conducted by Yilmaz-Tuzun and Topcu (2008) in a Turkish context and Schommer (1990) in a US context.Congruent to Schommer’s (1990) and Yilmaz-Tuzun and Topcu’s (2008) findings inwhich four factors were found instead of one factor, factor analysis of the presentstudy also advised four factors for epistemological beliefs. In other words, ESTsdevelop their epistemological beliefs as a set of more or less independent beliefs,suggesting multidimensional theory is more appropriate than unidimensional theory inexplaining and identifying ESTs’ epistemological beliefs.
The alpha reliability values (0.35 through 0.60) in the present study are higherthan Yilmaz-Tuzun and Topcu’s (2008) study (0.25 through 0.60) but still lowerthan Schommer’s (1990) study (0.51 through 0.78). Still, some problems may becontinuing in the present study. The Turkish translation of the SEQ may not reflectthe exact meaning of the original SEQ. The participants may not understand theitems of the SEQ in the exact meaning of the English version of the instrument. Asanother reason for low reliability values, epistemological beliefs like moral reason-ing are complex psychological concepts and can be hard to differentiate into subcate-gories of the SEQ.
Previous research regarding epistemological beliefs showed that it is not an easytask to investigate epistemological beliefs both quantitatively and qualitatively(Schommer 1990, 1993; Yilmaz-Tuzun and Topcu 2008). For example, Schommer’smany epistemological studies indicated three to four different epistemological factorstructures. These variations of the factors indicate that it is hard to expect similarfactor structures for different samples (Yilmaz-Tuzun and Topcu 2008). For instance,while the same three factors (innate ability, certain knowledge, and simple knowl-edge) were found in both the present and Yilmaz-Tuzun and Topcu’s (2008) studies,one factor emerged from the factor analysis of the present study as different fromYilmaz-Tuzun and Topcu’s (2008) study. While Yilmaz-Tuzun and Topcu (2008)determined omniscient authority as a factor of epistemological beliefs, the presentstudy found quick learning as a factor instead of omniscient authority. It is interestingthat although both studies used Turkish student teachers as a sample, they each foundone different factor of epistemological beliefs, omniscient authority in the previousstudy and quick learning in the present study. Yilmaz-Tuzun and Topcu (2008)discussed a factor of ‘omniscient authority’ in detail in their study and they stated thatthis factor might have stemmed from the characteristics of the educational system inTurkey.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
08:
52 2
7 Se
ptem
ber
2013
114 M.S. Topcu
In the Turkish educational system, many teachers might have applied traditional teachingstrategies (e.g., expository). Those traditional teaching approaches might have ledstudents to comprehend that science is a body of knowledge discovered by scientists, inwhich the teachers’ role is to deliver this knowledge to students. That kind of teachingenvironment might have distracted our students from critically reflecting upon the scien-tific knowledge and the ways scientists make their discoveries in any time of their life asa student. This approach might be the reason for the omniscient authority we found inour factor structures. (Yilmaz-Tuzun and Topcu 2008, 77–8)
Surprisingly, the present study revealed a result that omniscient authority was notfound as a factor of epistemological beliefs and may not be a characteristic of theTurkish educational system. Moreover, three other factors of epistemological beliefs(simple knowledge, certain knowledge, and innate ability) remained the same in bothstudies conducted in a Turkish context (Topcu and Yilmaz-Tuzun 2006; Yilmaz-Tuzun and Topcu 2008) and in a US context (Schommer 1990). It can be concludedthat these three factors are the basic and important factors of personal epistemologicalbeliefs while other factors may be distinctive depending on the educational context ofthe country. Therefore, no matter what ESTs’ educational context is or what majorthey are studying, if the aim is to improve epistemological beliefs of the students,these three factors of epistemological beliefs have been identified as the ones to betargeted and emphasised.
Yilmaz-Tuzun and Topcu’s (2008) study confirmed Schommer-Aikins’s (2004)claim that educational context may be effective in shaping students’ epistemologicalbeliefs. However, the present study did not support this opinion because the samefactors were found in different countries having different educational characteristics.It might be speculative, but the present study showed that at least these three factors(innate ability, certain knowledge, and simple knowledge) are independent from anyeducational context. Moreover, it may also be claimed that omniscient authority maybe related to the characteristics of the educational system in a country. Whereas thepresent study did not find omniscient authority as a dimension of epistemologicalbeliefs, this dimension was determined as the most distinctive factor among all epis-temological factors in the study by Yilmaz-Tuzun and Topcu (2008).
Another significant finding about the ESTs’ epistemological beliefs was that mostESTs believed that learning effort was more important than innate ability. These qual-itative results are expected because the Turkish education system is basicallyconstructed on and influenced by central exams across the country starting from theelementary schools to doctorate admissions. For example, for high school admissionsand selections, all sixth, seventh, and eight grade students must complete multiple-choice exams at the end of each year. Depending on their exam scores, they areaccepted to high schools. Similarly, for undergraduate admissions, all high schoolstudents must complete multiple-choice exams at the end of their high schooleducation. Because of those exams performed approximately each year, parents andteachers always emphasise the rule that effort or hard work is considered to be the mostimportant attribute of a student’s achievement. In the Turkish educational system, thesecentral exams may have a strong influence on ESTs’ epistemological beliefs in termsof the claim that learning effort or hard work is more important than innate ability.
The other significant result was that interview findings for the certain knowledgedimension are not consistent with the quantitative findings. Quantitative resultsshowed that ESTs exhibited less sophisticated epistemological beliefs in certain
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
08:
52 2
7 Se
ptem
ber
2013
European Journal of Teacher Education 115
knowledge. However, according to qualitative findings, all participants asserted thatknowledge changes or that knowledge changes depending on the discipline whereknowledge is created, but none claimed that knowledge does not change. Similar tothe dimension of certain knowledge, most of the participants stated that the simplicityof knowledge mostly depends on the nature of the discipline. For example, a greatmajority of the participants stated that most problems have multiple solutions in socialand science disciplines as opposed to the disciplines of mathematics and religion.While several ESTs stated that the changes in the society and times may cause thecomplexity, change and reformation of the existing knowledge, many ESTs assertedthat the complexity and change of knowledge mostly depend on the nature of thediscipline. For example, ESTs frequently refer to the unchanging nature of religiousknowledge. The fact that a majority of the Turkish population is Muslim may influ-ence this finding. In Turkey, religious thinking or consideration has an important place(Topcu, Sadler, and Yilmaz-Tuzun 2010) and may have an influence on TurkishESTs’ epistemological beliefs in certain or simple knowledge.
The last significant finding related to epistemological belief dimensions wasregarding quick learning. Overall, the quantitative and qualitative results were consis-tent in this dimension. Findings from both methods indicated that ESTs exhibitedmore sophisticated epistemological beliefs in quick learning, and ESTs stated thatlearning is a gradual process not a quick process. Many ESTs evaluated quick learningas memorisation. In addition, ESTs stated that learning is a slow process for tworeasons: fast learning is equal to memorisation and their own experiences showed thatlearning is a complex activity that cannot be rushed. However, these results create aconflict in terms of the relationship between theory and practice in the Turkish educa-tional system. As stated before, in the Turkish educational system, many teachersapply traditional teaching strategies such as lecturing (Yilmaz-Tuzun and Topcu2008). Those strategies might have led students to comprehend that knowledge islearned quickly, in which case the teachers’ role is to deliver this knowledge tostudents quickly because of the fixed schedule of a state-mandated curriculum andcentral exams across Turkey. As a result, Turkish students would have felt a need tomemorise this delivered knowledge in a short time to be successful in central examsacross the country. Moreover, in Turkey, it is required that teachers must completestate-mandated curricula in a fixed amount of time. However, the present studyshowed that Turkish ESTs believe that learning is a gradually developing process, nota memorisation process. These findings showed that in the Turkish educationalsystem, there is an inconsistency or a gap between theory and practice. Although theo-retically many teachers believe that traditional teaching strategies and memorisationare not true strategies to teach students, they mostly use these strategies and methodsin their classroom practices.
The second important aim of the present study was to explore the relationshipsamong ESTs’ epistemological beliefs and moral reasoning. The researcher predictedthat epistemological beliefs would be related to P scores. Beliefs about simple knowl-edge, certain knowledge, innate ability, and quick learning were expected to influenceparticipants’ moral reasoning. Unfortunately, the findings of the present study did notsupport the expected relationships between epistemological beliefs and moral reason-ing. Contrary to studies in psychology (e.g., Bendixen, Schraw, and Dunkle 1998), thepresent research did not find significant associations. However, the finding of thecurrent research supported the findings of the research exploring associations between
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
08:
52 2
7 Se
ptem
ber
2013
116 M.S. Topcu
epistemological beliefs and moral reasoning in an accounting context (Mintchik andFarmer 2009). Research in accounting reported that although these constructs aredifferent benchmarks of cognitive processing, no significant associations were foundamong them. The general interpretation of the present study of this result is very simi-lar to the study of Mintchik and Farmer (2009) that personal epistemological beliefsand moral reasoning represent separate dimensions of cognitive processing; for theirimprovement, different pedagogies are necessary.
Conclusions and implications
The purpose of the present study was to investigate the associations between episte-mological beliefs and moral reasoning. The findings of the present study demonstratedthat epistemological beliefs did not make a unique contribution to moral reasoning.Whereas significant relationships were found in psychology research settings(Bendixen, Schraw, and Dunkle 1998; Schommer 1990, 1993), this relationship wasnot found in business (Mintchik and Farmer 2009) and educational research settings.This finding showed that the nature of the relationship between moral reasoning andepistemological beliefs may be context-dependent. Based on this finding, therefore, itcan be claimed that epistemological beliefs and moral reasoning represent separatedimensions of cognitive development.
Previous research asserts that moral and epistemological developments of ESTsare two important aims of teacher education (see Mintchik and Farmer 2009). Differ-ent pedagogical courses and approaches could be used separately to foster ESTs’ epis-temological beliefs and moral reasoning in teacher education programmes. However,in the current teacher education programme in Turkey, there are no courses whichexplicitly include epistemological and moral issues. There are neither any theoreticalcourses including information and explanations about epistemology and morality norare there any practical courses, such as Practice Teaching I and II, which include thediscussion or practical implementation of epistemology and morality. ESTs observetheir mentors and teach subject knowledge to the students, but they do not considerand discuss any epistemological or moral issues from their student teachingexperience in practice teaching courses.
The results of the current study also showed that while student teachers developmore sophisticated beliefs in some epistemological dimensions (e.g., quick learning),they develop less sophisticated beliefs in other epistemological dimensions (e.g.,simple knowledge). It can be concluded that ESTs have different epistemologicalbeliefs in different degrees. This conclusion is supported by the claim advanced by theresearchers (see Bendixen et al. 1998; Schommer 1990, 1993; Yilmaz-Tuzun andTopcu 2008) in which individuals’ epistemological beliefs developed as more or lessindependent beliefs. The present study also showed that ESTs exhibited considerablyless sophisticated beliefs in some epistemological dimensions. Qualitative researchresults supported these findings in which ESTs exhibited considerably naïve episte-mological beliefs, especially in some dimensions of epistemological beliefs such assimple knowledge. As stated in the introduction, these beliefs are crucial for teachingand learning because they influence students’ and teachers’ learning and teachingpractices. The previous (Yilmaz-Tuzun and Topcu 2008) and present research resultspose some issues of critical importance about the implementation of effective teachingpractices for ESTs in teacher education programmes in Turkey.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
08:
52 2
7 Se
ptem
ber
2013
European Journal of Teacher Education 117
Teacher education programmes aim to prepare the teachers who improve them-selves and their schools in response to the rapidly changing world (Yilmaz-Tuzun andTopcu 2008). Teachers should understand their own beliefs and the relationships ofthese beliefs with their classroom practices (Schraw and Olafson 2002). One of thesesets of beliefs is epistemological. The present research suggested less sophisticatedepistemological beliefs for ESTs to a considerable degree. Teacher educators shouldhelp students be aware of and improve their beliefs. Pajares (1992) stated that it isdifficult to change ESTs’ beliefs during teacher education programmes since teachers’beliefs have been shaped for a very long time (Aguirre and Haggerty 1995). ‘Asystematic approach is needed to help PSTs [preservice science teachers] change theirless sophisticated epistemological beliefs’ (Yilmaz-Tuzun and Topcu 2008, 81–2).Being aware of individuals’ epistemological beliefs is the first step to focussing onimprovement of their epistemological beliefs. Since teachers influence their studentseasily, teachers’ epistemological beliefs become more critical. If teachers are aware oftheir students’ epistemological beliefs, they can use appropriate instructional strate-gies and improve their students’ learning. However, first, teachers should be aware oftheir own epistemological beliefs and improve their epistemological beliefs beforetheir students’ epistemological development.
At this point, it is necessary to consider possible methods to develop epistemolog-ical beliefs in ESTs. Change of epistemological beliefs is slow and irregular, andindividuals often return to their previously held beliefs (Vasniadou 1994). White(2000) suggests that a planned and wide array of pedagogical strategies can changeteachers’ epistemological beliefs from less sophisticated to more sophisticated.Brownlee, Purdie, and Boulton-Lewis (2001) indicated that a teacher educationprogramme including group discussions and written reflections of epistemologicalbeliefs enabled teachers to change their epistemological beliefs. In this case, teachersimproved their teaching practices by using student-centred classrooms more. Previ-ous research showed that it is possible to change from less sophisticated to moresophisticated beliefs (Schraw and Olafson 2002). Using epistemic reflections(Baxter-Magolda 2002) can be a method to improve students’ or teachers’ epistemo-logical beliefs. In this method, students are asked to reflect on their beliefs about thenature and acquisition of knowledge and learning in writing and in small groupdiscussions, and they defend their adopted positions. With the epistemic reflectionmethod, students or teachers interrogate their assumptions and revise or change exist-ing beliefs (Dole and Sinatra 1998). This method is highly similar to the argumenta-tion method frequently used by researchers recently. Van Eemeren et al. (1996, 5)defined argumentation as:
… a verbal and social activity of reason aiming at increasing (or decreasing) theacceptability of a controversial standpoint for the listener or reader, by putting forwarda constellation of propositions intended to justify (or refute) the standpoint before arational judge.
In the argumentation process, individuals can reflect their thoughts in writing or insmall group discussions and defend their opinions in response to counter-opinions.Considering counter-claims, individuals either keep their opinions or modify theirexisting opinions.
At this point, teacher education programmes may provide an ideal context forESTs to improve their epistemological beliefs. Courses (i.e., philosophy and history
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
08:
52 2
7 Se
ptem
ber
2013
118 M.S. Topcu
of science, field experiences, and educational methods) including epistemic reflec-tions or argumentation may help ESTs develop their epistemological beliefs. Forexample, in an educational methods course, students can discuss and negotiate socio-scientific issues (SSI) such as genetic engineering issues or global warming issueswith the guidance of their teachers. These challenging issues are social-related scien-tific issues, likely to be confronted in people’s daily lives (Kolstø 2001), and providea context to make argumentation. In this course, a teacher may present a humancloning case as a SSI:
Deceased child cloning: A couple and their newborn child (their only child) are involvedin a terrible automobile accident. The father dies, but the mother does not. Doctorsinform the mother that her baby will undoubtedly die within a few days. The womanwants to raise a child that is the product of her deceased husband and herself. She wouldlike to take cell samples from her dying child so that she can give birth to a genetic cloneof the child. Should this mother be able to clone her child under these circumstances?(Topcu et al. 2010, 2482)
While some students would approve of human cloning, other students would not.In this hypothetical activity, two groups are formed by the teacher: one group consist-ing of the students supporting human cloning, and another group consisting of thestudents not supporting human cloning. Students can reflect their opinions or thoughtsin these group discussions. From each group, one student is selected, and in front ofthe class, this student defends his/her group’s opinions in response to counter-opinionsand presents evidences or thoughts such as moral–ethical, emotional, or socialconsiderations related to the appropriateness or inappropriateness of human cloning.Considering counter-claims, students in the groups either keep their opinions ormodify their existing opinions. Thus, with these epistemic reflections or argumenta-tion activities, students may reflect on their beliefs about knowledge and learning; forexample, they may think that the interpretation of knowledge is changeable accordingto changing life conditions and consider their moral–ethical perspectives when theymake a decision about the human cloning issue. Teacher education programmesshould include these courses and ESTs should be encouraged to take these coursesduring their teacher education. When courses are re-organised to provide ESTs theopportunity to express their beliefs and to consider the implications of holding thesebeliefs, a significant change can be observed in epistemological beliefs (Olafson andBendixen 2002).
The present study also showed that Turkish ESTs’ mean principled moral reason-ing scores (P scores) were comparatively lower than the mean P scores of accountinguniversity students (Mintchik and Farmer 2009; Thorne 2000) in US and Canadiancontexts. Thus, in addition to improvement of ESTs’ epistemological beliefs, coursesincluding SSI may be useful for ESTs to foster awareness of and development of theirmoral reasoning. SSI include scientific claims and arguments as well as ethical andmoral perspectives (Kolstø 2006), and represent ill-structured problems that mayprovide ideal contexts to increase awareness of and improvement of moral reasoningfor ESTs. Many studies have already reported that there are significant relationshipsbetween discussing and decision-making regarding SSI and individuals’ moral reason-ing (Bell and Lederman 2003; Fleming 1986a, 1986b; Sadler and Zeidler 2004).Discussing and negotiating these issues in teacher education practices may influenceand improve future teachers’ moral reasoning as well as their epistemological beliefs.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
08:
52 2
7 Se
ptem
ber
2013
European Journal of Teacher Education 119
It is necessary to focus more on one course mentioned previously, the practicumcourse. This course can provide a context for ESTs to see how their epistemologicalbeliefs are connected with their educational practices. During this course, ESTs mayidentify their epistemological beliefs and observe how those beliefs influence theireducational practice. ESTs need to develop links between theory and practice withcontinuous discussion of theoretical understandings, their implementation, and theeffects of their epistemological beliefs on those practices during their microteachingand practicum experiences (Schraw and Olafson 2002). Practicum experiences canhelp ESTs see how theoretical understanding about learning and teaching are reflectedin the real classroom settings (Yilmaz-Tuzun and Topcu 2008). ESTs in practicumexperience try to learn how they link theory and practice in classroom settings.However, it is generally accepted that learning theories are rarely practiced in class-rooms by ESTs (Cochran-Smith 1991). The findings of Schraw and Olafson’s (2002)study indicated that teachers had more sophisticated epistemological beliefs andbelieved that student-centred instruction is a more useful method for the students, butteachers frequently used teacher-centred methods and less-sophisticated epistemolog-ical practices in their classroom. The ‘theory–practice’ gap between university andelementary classrooms is widely accepted (Britzman 2000; Schraw and Olafson2002). ‘The relationship between what is and what ought to be occurring in class-rooms can be developed further by connecting coursework to the field’ (Schraw andOlafson 2002, 19). Linking theoretical concepts to their practical application is one ofthe most important aims of teacher education programmes, and this could be achievedby continuing the discussion of epistemological beliefs and their implications for prac-tice in the practicum experience (Schraw and Olafson 2002). It can be suggested thatelementary school and university cooperation need to be fostered to provide ESTswith an opportunity to develop not only their epistemological beliefs but also theirepistemological practices.
As a last word, it should be noted that the present study is limited in its sample,and the analysis is based on the self-reporting of ESTs in the questionnaires andinterviews. In order to support or extend the given data, further qualitative investiga-tions with observations are recommended for future studies. Moreover, longitudinalstudies on ESTs’ development throughout the teacher education programme willprovide better understanding about the relationship patterns between epistemologyand morality and for the changes in ESTs’ epistemological beliefs and moralperspective.
Notes on contributor
Mustafa Sami Topcu is assistant professor at the Department of Elementary Education atYuzuncu Yil University, Turkey. His research interests are teachers’ beliefs and educationalpractices, argumentation, socioscientific issues, morality, and epistemological beliefs.
References
Aguirre, M., and S. Haggerty. 1995. Preservice teachers’ meaning of learning. InternationalJournal of Science Education 17: 119–31.
Baxter-Magolda, M.B. 2002. Epistemological reflection: The evolution of epistemologicalassumptions from age 18 to 30. In Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
08:
52 2
7 Se
ptem
ber
2013
120 M.S. Topcu
about knowledge and knowing, ed. B. Hofer and P.R. Pintrich, 89–102. Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
Belenky, M., B. Clinchy, N. Goldberger, and J. Tarule. 1986. Women’s ways of knowing. NewYork: Basic Books.
Bell, R.L., and N.G. Lederman. 2003. Understandings of the nature of science anddecision-making on science and technology based issues. Science Education 87:352–77.
Bendixen, L.D., G. Schraw, and M.E. Dunkle. 1998. Epistemic beliefs and moral reasoning.The Journal of Psychology 13, no. 3: 187–200.
Boyes, M.C., and M. Chandler. 1992. Cognitive development, epistemic doubt, and identityformation in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 21: 277–303.
Boz, Y. 2008. Turkish student teachers’ concerns about teaching. European Journal ofTeacher Education 31, no. 4: 367–77.
Britzman, D. 2000. Teacher education in the confusion of our times. Journal of TeacherEducation 51, no. 3: 200–5.
Brownlee, J., N. Purdie, and G. Boulton-Lewis. 2001. Changing epistemological beliefs inpre-service teaching education students. Teaching in Higher Education 6: 247–68.
Cano, F. 2005. Epistemological beliefs and approaches to learning: Their change throughsecondary school and their influence on academic performance. British Journal ofEducational Psychology 75, no. 2: 203–21.
Cesur, S. 1997. The relationship between cognitive and moral development. Master thesis,Bo[gbreve] aziçi University, Istanbul.
Cesur, S., and M.S. Topcu. 2010. A reliability and validation study of the defining issues test:The relationship of age, education, gender and parental education with moral develop-ment. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice 10, no. 3: 1657–96.
Chan, K.W., and R.G. Elliott. 2002. Exploratory study of Hong Kong teacher educationstudents’ epistemological beliefs: Cultural perspectives and implications on beliefsresearch. Contemporary Educational Psychology 27: 392–414.
Chan, K.W., and R.G. Elliott. 2004. Epistemological beliefs across cultures: Critique andanalysis of beliefs structure studies. Educational Psychology 24, no. 2: 123–42.
Cheng, M.M.H, K.-W. Chan, S.Y.F. Tang, and A.Y.N. Cheng. 2009. Pre-service teachereducation students’ epistemological beliefs and their conceptions of teaching. Teachingand Teacher Education 25: 319–27.
Chin-Chung, T., and S. Chuang. 2005. The correlation between epistemological beliefs andpreferences toward internet-based learning environments. British Journal of EducationalTechnology 36, no. 1: 97–100.
Cochran-Smith, M. 1991. Learning to teach against the grain. Harvard Educational Review61, no. 3: 279–310.
Curtis, J., R. Billingslea, and J.P. Wilson. 1988. Personality correlates of moral reasoning andattitudes toward authority. Psychological Reports 63: 947–54.
Damon, W. 1988. The moral child. New York: The Free Press.Dole, J.A., and G.A. Sinatra. 1998. Reconceprualizing change in the cognitive construction of
knowledge. Educational Psychologist 33: 109–28.Dweck, C.S., and E.L. Leggett. 1988. A social–cognitive approach to motivation and person-
ality. Psychological Review 95: 256–73.Edmondson, K.M., and J.D. Novak. 1993. The interplay of scientific epistemological views,
learning strategies, and attitudes of college students. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching 30, no. 6: 547–60.
Eren, A., and K.V. Tezel. 2010. Factors influencing teaching choice, professional plans aboutteaching, and future time perspective: A mediational analysis. Teaching and TeacherEducation 26, no. 7: 1416–28.
Evans, J.H. 2002. Playing God? Human genetic engineering and the rationalization of publicbioethical debate. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fleming, R. 1986a. Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues, part I: Social cognition.Journal of Research in Science Teaching 23: 677–87.
Fleming, R. 1986b. Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues, part II: Nonsocial cogni-tion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 23: 689–98.
g
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
08:
52 2
7 Se
ptem
ber
2013
European Journal of Teacher Education 121
Froming, W.J., and E.B. McColgan. 1979. Comparing the Defining Issues Test and the MoralDilemma Interview. Developmental Psychology 15, no. 6: 658–9.
Gess-Newsome, J., and N.G. Lederman. 2002. Examining pedagogical content knowledge:The construct and its implications for science education. The Netherlands: Springer.
Gibbs, J.C., K.S. Basinger, R.L. Grime, and J.R. Snarey. 2007. Moral judgment developmentacross cultures: Revisiting Kohlberg’s universality claims. Developmental Review 27:443–500.
Hashweh, M.Z. 1996. Effects of science teachers’ epistemological beliefs in teaching. Journalof Research in Science Teaching 33: 47–63.
Haskuka, M., D. Sunar, and I.E. Alp. 2008. War exposure, attachment style and moral reason-ing. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 39, no. 4: 381–401.
Herrington, C., and S. Weaven. 2008. Improving consistency for DIT results using clusteranalysis. Journal of Business Ethics 80: 499–514.
Hofer, B.K. 2002. Personal epistemology: Conflicts and consensus in an emerging area ofinquiry. Interactive symposium presented at the American Educational Research Associ-ation, Division D, April 1–5, in New Orleans, LA.
Hofer, B.K. 2004. Epistemological understanding as a metacognitive process: Thinking aloudduring online searching. Educational Psychologist 39, no. 1: 43–55.
Hofer, B.K., and P.R. Pintrich. 1997. The development of epistemological theories: Beliefsabout knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of EducationalResearch 67: 88–140.
Howard, B.C., S. McGee, N. Schwartz, and S. Purcell. 2000. The experience of constructiv-ism: Transforming teacher epistemology. Journal of Research on Computing inEducation 32: 455–65.
Johnston, P., H. Woodside-Jiron, and J. Day. 2001. Teaching and learning literate epistemolo-gies. Journal of Educational Psychology 93, no. 1: 223–33.
Jones, M.G., and G. Carter. 2006. Science teacher attitudes and beliefs. In Handbook ofresearch on science education, ed. S.K. Abell, and N.G. Lederman, 1067–104. NewJersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kardash, C.M., and R.J. Scholes. 1996. Effects of preexisting beliefs, epistemological beliefs,and need for cognition on interpretation of controversial issues. Journal of EducationalPsychology 88: 260–71.
King, P.M., and K.S. Kitchener. 1994. Developing reflective judgment: Understanding andpromoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.
King, P.M., and K.S. Kitchener. 2004. Reflective judgment: Theory and research ondevelopment of epistemic assumptions through adulthood. Educational Psychologist 39:5–18.
Kohlberg, L. 1973. Stages and aging in moral development. The Gerontologist Winter: 497–503.Kohlberg, L., and R. Kramer. 1969. Continuities and discontinuities in childhood and adult
moral development. Human Development 12: 93–120.Kolstø, S.D. 2001. Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science
dimension of controversial SSI. Science Education 85: 291–310.Kolstø, S.D. 2006. Patterns in students’ argumentation confronted with a risk-focused socio-
scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education 28, no. 14: 1689–716.Kuhn, D. 1991. The skills of argument. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Laupa, M. 1991. Children’s reasoning about three authority attributes: Adult status,
knowledge, and social position. Developmental Psychology 30: 20–2.Lincoln, Y.S., and E.G. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Lind, G. 2009. The Moral Judgment Test. Paper presented at the 35th Annual Conference of
the Association for Moral Education, July 2–4, Utrecht University, The Netherlands.Ma, H.K. 1989. Moral orientation and moral judgment in adolescents in Hong Kong, Main-
land China, and England. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 20, no. 2: 152–77.Martin, R.M., M. Shafto, and W. Van Deinse. 1977. The reliability, validity, and design of the
Defining Issues Test. Developmental Psychology 13, no. 5: 460–8.Mintchik, N.M., and T.A. Farmer. 2009. Associations between epistemological beliefs and
moral reasoning: Evidence from accounting. Journal of Business Ethics 84: 259–75.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
08:
52 2
7 Se
ptem
ber
2013
122 M.S. Topcu
Moon, Y. 1986. A review of cross-cultural studies on moral judgment development using theDefining Issues Test. Behavior Science Research 20, no. 1/4: 147–77.
Nichols, M.L., and V.E. Day. 1982. A comparison of moral reasoning of groups andindividuals on the Defining Issues Test. Academy of Management Journal 25, no. 1:201–8.
Nisan, M., and L. Kohlberg. 1982. Universality and variation in moral judgment: A longitudi-nal and cross-sectional study in Turkey. Child Development 53: 865–76.
Olafson, L., and L.D. Bendixen. 2002. Images and beliefs: Emerging themes on pedagogyfrom pre-service teachers. Issues in Teacher Education 11, no. 2: 3–16.
Pajares, M.F. 1992. Teacher beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct.Review of Educational Research 14: 5–19.
Palmer, B., and R.M. Marra. 2004. College student epistemological perspectives acrossknowledge domains: A proposed grounded theory. Higher Education 47, no. 3: 311–35.
Pedretti, E. 1999. Decision making and STS education: Exploring scientific knowledge andsocial responsibility in schools and science centers through an issues-based approach.School Science and Mathematics 99: 174–81.
Perry Jr., W.G. 1968. Patterns of development in thought and values of students in a liberalarts college: a validation of a scheme. Final report. Cambridge, MA: Bureau of StudyCounsel, Harvard University.
Phillips, F. 2001. A research note on accounting students’ epistemological beliefs, study strat-egies, and unstructured problem-solving performance. Issues in Accounting Education16, no. 1: 21–39.
Piaget, J. 1932. The moral judgment of the children. London: Routledge.Piaget, J. 1965. Moral judgment of the child. New York: Free Press.Presley, S.L. 1985. Moral judgment and attitudes toward authority of political resisters. Jour-
nal of Research in Personality 19: 135–51.Rest, J.R. 1975. Longitudinal study of the defining issues test of moral judgment: A
strategy for analyzing developmental change. Developmental Psychology 11, no. 6:738–48.
Rest, J.R. 1984. Research on moral development: Implications for training counselingpsychologists. Counseling Psychologist 12: 19–29.
Rest, J.R. 1986. Manual for the defining issues test. Minneapolis: University of MinnesotaPress.
Rest, J.R. 1994. Background: Theory and research. In Moral development in the professions:Psychology and applied ethics, ed. J.R. Restand, and D. Narvaez, 1–26. New Jersey:Erlbaum, Hillsdale.
Rest, J.R., D. Cooper, R. Coder, J. Masanz, and D. Anderson. 1974. Judging the importantissues in moral dilemmas: An objective measure of development. DevelopmentalPsychology 10, no. 4: 491–501.
Rest, J.R., M.L. Davison, and S. Robbins. 1978. Age trends in judging moral issues: A reviewof cross-sectional, longitudinal, and sequential studies of the Defining Issues Test. ChildDevelopment 49: 263–79.
Ryan, M.P. 1984. Monitoring test comprehension: Individual differences in epistemologicalstandards. Journal of Educational Psychology 76: 248–58.
Sadler, T.D., and D.L. Zeidler. 2004. The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal andresolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education 88, no. 1: 4–27.
Schaefli, A., J.R. Rest, and S.J. Thoma. 1985. Does moral education improve moral judg-ment? A meta-analysis of intervention studies using the Defining Issues Test. Review ofEducational Psychology 55, no. 3: 319–52.
Schoenfeld, A. 1983. Beyond the purely cognitive: Belief systems, social cognitions, and meta-cognitions as driving forces in intellectual performance. Cognitive Science 7: 329–63.
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 amongsecondary students. Journal of Educational Psychology 85: 406–11.
Schommer, M. 1994. Synthesizing epistemological belief research: Tentative understandingsand provocative confusions. Educational Psychology Review 6, no. 4: 293–319.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
08:
52 2
7 Se
ptem
ber
2013
European Journal of Teacher Education 123
Schommer, M., A. Crouse, and N. Rhodes. 1992. Epistemological beliefs and mathematicaltext comprehension: Believing it is simple does not make it so. Journal of EducationalPsychology 84: 435–43.
Schommer, M., and K. Walker. 1997. Epistemological beliefs and valuing school: Consider-ations for college admissions and retention. Research in Higher Education 38: 173–86.
Schommer-Aikins, M. 2002. An evolving theoretical framework for an epistemological beliefsystem. In Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and know-ing, ed. B.K. Hofer, and P.R. Pintrich, 103–18. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schommer-Aikins, M. 2004. Explaining the epistemological belief system: Introducing theembedded systemic model and coordinated research approach. Educational Psychologist39, no. 1: 19–29.
Schommer-Aikins, M., W. Mau, S. Brookhart, and R. Hutter. 2000. Understanding middlestudents’ beliefs about knowledge and learning using multidimensional paradigm. Jour-nal of Educational Research 94: 120–7.
Schommer-Aikins, M., O.K. Duell, and S. Barker. 2003. Epistemological beliefs acrossdomains using Biglan’s classification of academic disciplines. Research in HigherEducation 44, no. 3: 347–66.
Schommer-Aikins, M., O.K. Duell, and R. Hutter. 2005. Epistemological beliefs, mathemati-cal problem-solving beliefs, and academic performance of middle school students. TheElementary School Journal 105, no. 3: 289–304.
Schraw, G., and L. Olafson. 2002. Teachers’ epistemological world views and educationalpractices. Issues in Education 8, no. 2: 99–149.
Shweder, R.A., M. Mahapatra, and J.G. Miller. 1987. Culture and moral development. In Theemergence of morality in young children, ed. J. Kagan, and S. Lamb, 1–83. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Sullivan, L.E 2009. The Sage glossary of the social and behavioral sciences. New York: Sage.Thorne, L. 2000. The development of two measures to assess accountants’ prescriptive and
deliberative moral reasoning. Behavioral Research in Accounting 12: 139–69.Tolunay, A. 2001. The relationship between religiosity, dogmatism and moral reasoning.
Master thesis, Bo[gbreve] aziçi University, Istanbul.Topcu, M.S., T.D. Sadler, and O. Yilmaz-Tuzun. 2010. Preservice science teachers’ informal
reasoning about socioscientific issues: The influence of issue context. InternationalJournal of Science Education 32, no. 18: 2475–95.
Topcu, M.S., and O. Yilmaz-Tuzun. 2006. The effects of self-efficacy and epistemologicalworld views on preservice science teachers’ epistemological beliefs. Paper presented atthe 8th International Conference on Education, May 25–28, in Athens, Greece.
Turiel, E. 1994. Morality, authoritarianism, and personal agency in cultural contexts. InPersonality and intelligence, ed. R.J. Stenrnberg, and P. Ruzgis, 271–302. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Van Eemeren, F.H., R. Grootendorst, F. Snoeck Henkemans, J.A. Blair, R.H. Johnson,E.C.W. Krabbe, Ch. Plantin, D.N. Walton, C.A. Willard, J. Woods, and D. Zarefsky.1996. Fundementals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgroundsand contemporary developments. New Jersey: Lawrance Erlbaum Associates.
Vasniadou, S. 1994. Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning andInstruction 4: 45–69.
Walker, H.A., G.L. Rowland, and M.C. Boyes. 1991. Personality, personal epistemology, andmoral judgment. Psychological Reports 68: 767–72.
White, B.C. 2000. Pre-service teachers’ epistemology viewed through perspectives on prob-lematic classroom situations. Journal of Education for Teaching 26: 279–305.
Yilmaz-Tuzun, O., and M.S. Topcu. 2008. Relationships among preservice science teachers’epistemological beliefs, epistemological world views, and self-efficacy beliefs. Interna-tional Journal of Science Education 30, no. 1: 65–85.
Yilmaz-Tuzun, O., and M.S. Topcu. 2010. Investigating the relationships among elementaryschool students’ epistemological beliefs, metacognition, and constructivist sciencelearning environment. Journal of Science Teacher Education 21, no. 2: 255–73.
Zeidler, D.L. 1984. Moral issues and social policy in science education: Closing the literacygap. Science Education 68: 411–19.
g
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
08:
52 2
7 Se
ptem
ber
2013
124 M.S. Topcu
Appendix A. Moral reasoning reading prompts
Hasan and the drugIn a town, a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug thatdoctors thought might save her. It was a form of the material that a druggist in the same townhad recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging 10times what the drug cost to make. He paid $200 for the main article and charged $2000 for asmall dose of the drug. The sick woman’s husband, Hasan, went to everyone he knew toborrow the money, but he could only get together about $1000, which is half of what it cost.He told the druggist that his wife was dying, and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him paylater. But the druggist said, ‘No, I discovered the drug and I’m going to make money on it’. SoHasan got desperate and began to think about breaking into the man’s store to steal the drugfor his wife. Should Hasan steal the drug? (Check one.)
Should stealCan’t decideShould not steal
Escaped prisonerA man had been sentenced to prison for 10 years. After one year, however, he escaped fromprison, moved to a new area of the country, and took on the name of Mahmut. For eight yearshe worked hard, and gradually he saved enough money to buy his own business. He was fairto his customers, gave his employees top wages, and gave most of his own profits to charity.Then one day, Zeynep, an old neighbour, recognised him as the man had escaped from theprison eight years before, and whom the police had been looking for. Should Zeynep reportMahmut to the police and have him sent back to the prison? (Check one.)
Should report himCan’t decideShould not report him
The doctor’s dilemmaA lady was dying of cancer which could not be cured and she had only about six months tolive. She was in terrible pain, but she was so weak that a large dose of a painkiller likemorphine would make her die sooner. She was delirious and almost crazy with pain, and in hercalm periods, she would ask the doctor to give her enough morphine to kill her. She said shecouldn’t stand the pain and that she was going to die in a few months anyway. What should thedoctor do? (Check one.)
He should give the lady an overdose that will make her dieCan’t decideShould not give the overdose
Sir FarukSir Faruk was the owner and manager of a repair station. He wanted to have another mechanicto help him, but good mechanics were hard to find. The only person he found who seemed tobe a good mechanic was Sir Zeki, but he was Gypsy. While Sir Faruk himself didn’t haveanything against Gypsies, he was afraid to hire Sir Zeki because many of his customers didn’tlike Gypsies. His customers might take their business elsewhere if Sir Zeki was working in thegas station.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
08:
52 2
7 Se
ptem
ber
2013
European Journal of Teacher Education 125
When Sir Zeki asked Sir Faruk if he could have the job, Sir Faruk said that he had alreadyhired somebody else. But Sir Faruk really had not hired anybody, because he could not findanybody who was a good mechanic besides Sir Zeki. What should Sir Faruk have done?(Check one.)
Should have hired Sir ZekiCan’t decideShould not have hired him
Appendix B. Interview questions related to epistemological beliefs
When you are learning a subject, what percentage will you attribute to your innate ability andto your learning effort? Why do you think that? Do you believe that perseverance and hardwork can overcome difficulties in learning?
Do you think most words have one clear meaning and most problems in science have only oneright answer? Why do you think that?
Do you think learning process is a slow process or fast process of building up knowledge? Whydo you think that?
Do you think knowledge changes, or it is something that does not change? Why do you thinkthat?
Note. The researcher benefited from the studies of Schommer (1990) and Cheng et al. (2009)to create the epistemological beliefs interview protocol.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
McG
ill U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
08:
52 2
7 Se
ptem
ber
2013