Domain specificity of personal epistemology: Resolved questions,persistent issues,new models

 Beliefs that individuals hold about knowledge and knowing, or what has been termed “personal epistemology”, are related to learning and achievement in complex ways. These beliefs are also differentiated by discipline (e.g., math, science, history) as well as by judgment domains (e.g., personal taste, morality, meaning). This commentary on five articles on the domain specificity of epistemic beliefs outlines the persistent issues in this field of research, including issues of terminology, methodology, and the interrelation of domain specificity and domain generality, and provides an overview of how the authors address these concerns. Also included are directions for future research and educational implications.     

Epistemic Perspective and Online Epistemic Processing of Evidence: Developmental and Domain Differences

Relations between epistemic perspective and online epistemic processing of evidence when reading a text were examined. Thirty-seven young adolescents and 24 graduate university students were asked to read and think aloud with two texts, one in the history domain and the other in the science domain. Participants also completed a prior-knowledge test and an instrument assessing their epistemic perspective. Results showed that participants who exhibited an evaluativist epistemic perspective and high prior knowledge used the epistemic standard of scientific research more than participants who held a nonevaluativist epistemic perspective. Furthermore, an age-related developmental difference was observed, with adults using the epistemic standard of scientific research more than young adolescents. Domain differences were observed in both participants’ epistemic perspectives and online epistemic processing. Participants overall engaged in online epistemic processing of evidence more in the history topic than in the science topic.     

The Role of Teacher Epistemic Cognition, Epistemic Beliefs, and Calibration in Instruction

This review examines the literature on teacher epistemic cognition, epistemic beliefs, and calibration to consider the relation between these constructs and instruction that emerged from empirical studies. In considering how this body of literature can enhance understanding of how students become masters of their learning processes, we will briefly review how different theoretical frameworks have conceptualized the relation between epistemic cognition, epistemic beliefs, calibration and metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Implications for research include a more nuanced conceptualization of epistemic beliefs and a theoretical integration of these constructs. Implications for practice regard the reciprocal relations between teachers’ knowledge, experience, epistemic cognition, epistemic beliefs, and calibration and their effects on pedagogical practices. The role of teachers’ education and professional development is discussed. Electronic supplementary material  The online version of this article (doi:) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

The domain generality–specificity of epistemological beliefs: A theoretical problem,a methodological problem or both?

Research on epistemological beliefs has clearly increased in the last decade. Even though the construct is clearer and relevant data are being collected, there are important theoretical and methodological issues that need further clarification. One of them is the debate about the domain generality–specificity of epistemological beliefs.I argue that there are both theoretical and methodological difficulties that hinder a more fruitful approach of the domain generality–specificity debate. Differences in goals and scope of the diverse conceptualizations about epistemological beliefs and how they devise the role of content-domain and context are a major source of difficulties. Methodological problems such as whether such epistemological beliefs can be measured “in isolation”—free of content and context influence—or the impossibility of collecting direct measures of epistemological beliefs may influence how the domain generality–specificity question is approached. Some suggestions about how these difficulties may be overcome are developed. The relevance of exploring epistemological beliefs across domains and across contexts is emphasized.     

Domain knowledge and individual interest: The effects of academic level and specialization in statistics and psychology

Numerous research studies have highlighted the significant impact of domain knowledge and individual interest on learning. However, much of this prior research has neglected several important issues regarding the dynamic interplay of domain knowledge and individual interest both within and between domains as well as across developmental stages of learners. Situated within the Model of Domain Learning, this investigation seeks to respond to those issues. We studied the scores of 267 undergraduate and graduate students representing a variety of majors and programs. Results indicate that domain knowledge and individual interest are related differently for the domains of statistics and psychology. Further, findings indicate that when examining multiple domains of learning (e.g., statistics and psychology), the relationship between domain knowledge and interest changes as an artifact of both students’ academic level of preparation in undergraduate and graduate programs and their academic specialization. Based on these results, we offer implications for future research.     

The epistemic challenges,trust and the online collaborative group

The use of collaborative learning strategies continues to grow in online environments. The ability to collaborate may, therefore, present epistemic challenges for the students and hinder their capacity to trust their own and their fellow students’ ability to help them learn, and the capacity of the group (as a whole) to grow and develop. The purpose of this study is to: examine the students’ experiences in OCG groups to understand the ways trust issues manifest in the OCG; the ways these trust issues reflect epistemic challenges; and the strategies that the students use to resolve the trust issues. The study uses a phenomenographic approach, a qualitative interpretative research approach that seeks to illuminate people’s understandings and ideas about the world or their experiences of it. The data analysis revealed that trust—especially as it related to ability—was a persistent issue for the groups with regard to two epistemic challenges: trusting their own capacity to accomplish the task; and trusting the knowledge and skills of their peers.     

What Would Dewey Say? Channeling Dewey on the Issue of Specificity of Epistemic Beliefs: A Response to Muis, Bendixen, and Haerle (2006)

In this response to Muis et al. (2006), I draw on the writings of Dewey to explore three critical questions. The first question is what is gained or what is lost when the study of epistemology moves from philosophy to psychology and eventually to educational practice? The second asks whether the primary question under examination should be if students’ beliefs about knowledge or knowing differ by domains or why they may differ? Finally, what are the implications of the generality or specificity of students’ epistemic beliefs for educational practice?     

冲突与选择:介于商标与域名之间

域名与商标的差异使得两者本分属于不同的领域,但域名与商标的共性则为两者发生冲突创造条件。目前,域名与商标的冲突主要表现在以下几个方面:域名系抢注他人的商标、域名与商标巧合雷同、反向域名侵夺和申请注册的商标系他人的域名。解决域名与商标冲突的首要问题是确定域名的性质。域名现在是一个技术参数,将来仍然只是一个技术参数,其后天形成的商业识别功能毕竟是阶段性的,技术功能却是长期的。从长远角度考虑,不宜赋予这种技术标记以专门的权利。域名与商标的冲突问题主要是法律适用问题,应通过法律适用解决。但是,权利人仅仅依靠法律救济是不可取的,积极采取各种预防措施,以防止冲突的发生或许是将挑战变为机遇的明智之举。     

Academic Self-Concepts in Ability Streams: Considering Domain Specificity and Same-Stream Peers

The study examined the relations between academic achievement and self-concepts in a sample of 1,067 seventh-grade students from 3 core ability streams in Singapore secondary education. Although between-stream differences in achievement were large, between-stream differences in academic self-concepts were negligible. Within each stream, levels of students’ achievement and their self-concepts were systematically related only when considered in the matching academic domain and the appropriate level of specificity. In English, lower achievers in the high-ability stream tended to underestimate their achievement, whereas higher achievers in the low-ability stream tended to overestimate their achievement. This pattern, however, was not evident in mathematics and the general academic domain. Taken together, the findings highlight the importance of considering the interplay of domain specificity and same-stream peers in academic self-concepts.     

Fostering Third-Grade Students’ Use of Scientific Models with the Water Cycle: Elementary teachers’ conceptions and practices

Elementary teachers play a crucial role in supporting and scaffolding students’ model-based reasoning about natural phenomena, particularly complex systems such as the water cycle. However, little research exists to inform efforts in supporting elementary teachers’ learning to foster model-centered, science learning environments. To address this need, we conducted an exploratory multiple-case study using qualitative research methods to investigate six 3rd-grade teachers’ pedagogical reasoning and classroom instruction around modeling practices (construct, use, evaluate, and revise) and epistemic considerations of scientific modeling (generality/abstraction, evidence, mechanism, and audience). Study findings show that all teachers emphasized a subset of modeling practices—construction and use—and the epistemic consideration of generality/abstraction. There was observable consistency between teachers’ articulated conceptions of scientific modeling and their classroom practices. Results also show a subset of the teachers more strongly emphasized additional epistemic considerations and, as a result, better supported students to use models as sense-making tools as well as representations. These findings provide important evidence for developing elementary teacher supports to scaffold students’ engagement in scientific modeling.     

General and Specific Issues for Researchers' Consideration in Applying the Risk and Resilience Framework to the Social Domain of Learning Disabilities

In this article, I discuss several general and specific issues that pertain to the risk and resilience framework. I propose that these issues deserve consideration by researchers using or interested in using the risk and resilience framework to guide their research in the social domain of learning disabilities. General issues discussed include: (1) integrating current research findings with those from prior longitudinal research by Emmy Werner and her associates, and from research in the 1980s and 1990s on problems in social perception and communication in children with learning disabilities; (2) measurement problems; and (3) the need for more differentiation in research regarding gender and the severity of learning disabilities. The specific issues discussed include: the need to continue to search for potential risk and protective factors; the need to research mediating processes or mechanisms that render a factor a risk or a protection; and the nature of intervention research.     

Relative expertise in an everyday reasoning task: Epistemic understanding, problem representation, and reasoning competence

Experts in cognitive domains differ from non-experts in how they represent problems and knowledge, and in their epistemic understandings of tasks in their domain of expertise. This study investigates whether task-specific epistemic understanding also underlies the representation of knowledge on an everyday reasoning task on which the competent reasoners have neither expert domain knowledge nor training. 180 people on jury duty were assessed for epistemological understanding about the nature of knowledge and knowing in general, understanding of the specific task of the juror, and level of argument skill and evidence representation on two jury cases. Epistemic construal of the juror task and task-specific competent reasoning was found related to general epistemology, argument skills, and representation of the evidence. Additionally, estimations of the possibility of certainty in general and in a juror task predicted the participants' expressed certainty about their verdict choices. Implications for developing everyday reasoning competence are discussed.     

The curious case of climate change: Testing a theoretical model of epistemic beliefs,epistemic emotions,and complex learning

We propose a theoretical model linking students' epistemic beliefs, epistemic emotions, learning strategies, and learning outcomes. The model was tested across two studies with 439 post-secondary students from Canada, the United States, and Germany for Study 1, and 56 students from Canada for Study 2. For Study 1, students self-reported their epistemic beliefs about climate change, read four conflicting documents about the causes and consequences of climate change, self-reported their epistemic emotions and learning strategies used to learn the content, and were given an inference verification test to measure learning. Study 2 used the same procedure but added a think aloud protocol to capture self-regulatory processes and emotions as they occurred. Path analyses revealed that epistemic beliefs served as important antecedents to the epistemic emotions students experienced during learning. Students who believed that the justification of knowledge about climate change requires critical evaluation of multiple sources experienced higher levels of enjoyment and curiosity, and lower levels of boredom when confronted with conflicting information. A belief in the complexity of this knowledge was related to lower levels of confusion, anxiety, and boredom. A belief in the uncertainty of this knowledge predicted lower levels of anxiety and frustration, and a belief in the active construction of knowledge predicted lower levels of confusion. Epistemic emotions predicted the types of learning strategies students used to learn the content and mediated relations between epistemic beliefs and learning strategies. Learning strategies predicted learning outcomes and mediated relations between epistemic emotions and learning outcomes. Implications for research on epistemic beliefs, epistemic emotions, and students' self-regulated learning are discussed.     

Epistemic beliefs and achievement goal orientations: Relations between constructs versus personal profiles

Research has found students' epistemic beliefs to predict their achievement goal orientations. Much of this research emerged from the dimensional approach of epistemic beliefs, which hypothesized a relationship between particular independent dimensions of epistemic beliefs with different achievement goals. Research in this approach has primarily applied a variable-centered approach to investigating these relations. The authors adopt an alternative conceptualization of epistemic beliefs, which considers epistemic beliefs and achievement goals as orthogonal to each other, and which favors a profile-centered approach to researching their relations. They hypothesized that while a variable-centered analysis would identify relations between epistemic beliefs and achievement goal orientations, a profile-centered analysis would demonstrate the independence of these psychological constructs. In three studies with high school students (ns = 256, 149, 250) the authors demonstrate that epistemic beliefs and achievement goals form different personal profiles that are differentially related to learning strategies.     

Values and Objectivity in Science: Value-Ladenness, Pluralism and the Epistemic Attitude

My intention is to cast light on the characteristics of epistemic or fundamental research (in contrast to application-oriented research). I contrast a Baconian notion of objectivity, expressing a correspondence of the views of scientists to the facts, with a pluralist notion, involving a critical debate between conflicting approaches. These conflicts include substantive hypotheses or theories but extend to values as well. I claim that a plurality of epistemic values serves to accomplish a non-Baconian form of objectivity that is apt to preserve most of the intuitions tied to the objectivity of science. For instance, pluralism is the only way to cope with the challenge of preference bias. Furthermore, the plurality of epistemic values cannot be substantially reduced by exploring the empirical success of scientific theories distinguished in light of particular such values. However, in addition to pluralism at the level of theories and value-commitments alike, scientific research is also characterized by a joint striving for consensus which I trace back to a shared epistemic attitude. This attitude manifests itself, e.g., in the willingness of scientists to subject their claims to empirical scrutiny and to respect rational argument. This shared epistemic attitude is embodied in rules adopted by the scientific community concerning general principles of dealing with knowledge claims. My contention is that pluralism and consensus formation can be brought into harmony by placing them at different levels of consideration: at the level of scientific reasoning and at the level of social conventions regarding how to deal with claims put forward within the scientific community.     

Thinking Controversially: The Psychological Condition for Teaching Controversial Issues

How should we teach controversial issues? And which issues should we teach as controversies? In this paper, I argue that educators should heed what I call a ‘psychological condition’ in their practical efforts to address these questions. In defending this claim, I engage with the various decision criteria that have been advanced in the controversial issues literature: the epistemic criterion, behavioral criterion, political criterion and politically authentic criterion. My argument is that the supporters of these various criteria have focused too closely on the socio‐political and epistemic qualities of controversial issues in deriving their controversial issues pedagogies and have thereby overlooked the necessary subjective conditions for teaching controversial issues. If our pedagogical efforts to cultivate students’ reason by means of controversial issues are to be successful, then we must understand controversy as fundamentally a psychological phenomenon consisting in an intellectual tension in the minds of students. In the final pages, I conclude by recommending several forms of directive teaching that promise to be instrumental for creating such intellectual tension.     

Disentangling Robust Developmental Constraints From the Instructionally Mutable: Young Children's Epistemic Reasoning About a Study of Their Own Design

This study examines first graders' epistemic reasoning, in tacit “practical epistemologies” reflected in thinking about an investigation of their own design. I analyzed children's epistemic reasoning, following a design experiment scaffolding increasing regulation of scientific inquiry in a domain they studied in depth. Participants consisted of children in two first grade classes (n = 35). The study capitalizes on the final phase of the design experiment, wherein pairs assumed substantial responsibility for design and implementation of an investigation pursuing their own question. I conducted structured interviews with each pair, eliciting their thinking about their investigation. Forty-three percent of the children attributed uncertainty to their findings. Forty-nine percent transcended phenomenon-based reasoning in thinking about how to improve their study, reasoning instead in terms of relation between variables. Forty percent posited additional potentially influential variables, reflecting a tacit understanding of the lack of any straightforward one-to-one correspondence between cause and effect. These findings suggest that epistemic reasoning is plastic, sensitive to instructional opportunities. I argue that the children's relatively deep familiarity with the domain, experience in assuming increasing responsibility for structuring scientific inquiry, and investment they had in their own investigations contributed to the surprisingly robust epistemic reasoning they revealed in this context.     

The match matters: Examining student epistemic preferences in relation to epistemic beliefs about chemistry

Student epistemic preferences have been found to be important in student learning and achievement. The present study proposed a new conceptualization of student epistemic preferences in the epistemic match model, assessed the match between student epistemic beliefs about chemistry and their epistemic preferences, and, most importantly, examined how this epistemic match may be associated with chemistry course achievement. We adopted latent class analysis and found three distinct profiles of epistemic preferences based on the dimensions of simple and certain knowledge, attainable truth, and alternative knowledge claims. Students in Latent Class 3 (Moderate Preferences) demonstrated the closest match between chemistry epistemic beliefs and epistemic preferences, and had more students who obtained higher grades and fewer students who had lower grades in an introductory chemistry course compared to the other two classes. Students in Latent Classes 1 (All Preferred) and 2 (Alternative-Claim Disliked), however, demonstrated certain degrees of epistemic mismatch between chemistry epistemic beliefs and epistemic preferences, and had noticeably lower achievement in the chemistry course. The study findings highlight the importance of achieving a close match between epistemic beliefs and epistemic preferences for higher achievement in a subject domain.     

发展教育学:一个重要的教育研究领域

发展教育学作为一个重要教育研究领域的出现有其产生的特定原因,发展教育学是从教育的视角研究社会发展引发的社会问题,并对教育发展的基本问题做出审视,进而通过教育自身的变革促进教育和社会的健康和谐发展,发展教育学作为教育学的一个重要研究领域在理论和实践上有着重要的意义。