The purpose of this study was to investigate pre-service science teachers&rsquo / (PST) quality of written argumentations about socio-scientific issues in an online discussion environment in relation to their epistemic beliefs and argumentativeness. A total of 30 pre-service elementary science teachers who will teach elementary school science from 6th through 8th grade students after graduation voluntarily participated in this study. The sample was chosen by purposive and convenience sampling from the PSTs registered for the course named &ldquo / Science, Technology, and Society&rdquo / in the fall semester of 2009-2010 academic year at a public university in Ankara. In this study, the PSTs participated in an online discussion environment in which climate change, nuclear power, genetically modified foods, and human genome project issues were discussed for a total of four week period. The major data of this study were collected through the Epistemic Beliefs Questionnaire developed by Kuhn, Cheney and Weinstock (2000) and the Argumentativeness Scale by Infante and Rancer (1982). For the analysis of the quality of argumentations, an adapted version of Sadler and Fowler&rsquo / s (2006) argumentation analysis framework was employed. The results of the study illustrated that the PSTs frequently generated high quality argumentations for each socio-scientific issue which was interpreted as a positive indication that the online discussion environment was effective in promoting students&rsquo / argumentation. In addition, the results also showed that argumentation quality levels varied across socio-scientific issues. Another result of this study was that the PSTs&rsquo / argumentation qualities were higher for multiplist and evaluativist levels. Finally, the correlation results between argumentativeness and argumentation quality levels did not reveal a significant correlation between these variables. However, there was a significant correlation between epistemic belief levels and argumentativeness.

This research is a practitioner inquiry into change in concepts in contexts of task based discourse in teacher education classrooms. The particular concepts selected for study are epistemic beliefs about knowledge in history. A hypothesis that there is a relationship between a perception of agency in task based discourse and change in concepts is proposed for research on the basis of a review of Kuhn's arguments for paradigm change and those of others on the problems of convergence of meaning between paradigms.1 Four of five quasi experimental studies conducted find tentative support for the alternative hypothesis and demonstrate how the relationship could be tested in the field. Change in epistemic beliefs from pre-test to post-test is significant in both groups, Control and Experimental, and consistently more and better change with moderate effect sizes is seen in the Experimental groups. A matched pedagogical method, experience of a range of suitable examples, Skemp (1971) was provided to both Control and Experimental groups and this is found to be effective in developing beliefs. The experimental construct, a perception of agency in task based discourse was enhanced in Experimental groups alone, which is used to explain the difference in change. A rubric, the Categories of Beliefs about Knowledge in History, CBKH, is developed and employed to examine responses to open ended questions. Likert Scales are also used and conclusions are drawn with a final quantitative analysis of data. Excerpts from a focus group discussion illustrate the process.

This research is a practitioner inquiry into change in concepts in contexts of task based discourse in teacher education classrooms. The particular concepts selected for study are epistemic beliefs about knowledge in history. A hypothesis that there is a relationship between a perception of agency in task based discourse and change in concepts is proposed for research on the basis of a review of Kuhn's arguments for paradigm change and those of others on the problems of convergence of meaning between paradigms.1 Four of five quasi experimental studies conducted find tentative support for the alternative hypothesis and demonstrate how the relationship could be tested in the field. Change in epistemic beliefs from pre-test to post-test is significant in both groups, Control and Experimental, and consistently more and better change with moderate effect sizes is seen in the Experimental groups. A matched pedagogical method, experience of a range of suitable examples, Skemp (1971) was provided to both Control and Experimental groups and this is found to be effective in developing beliefs. The experimental construct, a perception of agency in task based discourse was enhanced in Experimental groups alone, which is used to explain the difference in change. A rubric, the Categories of Beliefs about Knowledge in History, CBKH, is developed and employed to examine responses to open ended questions. Likert Scales are also used and conclusions are drawn with a final quantitative analysis of data. Excerpts from a focus group discussion illustrate the process.

The purpose of this study was to examine teachers’ availing and nonavailing epistemic beliefs about teaching and learning, with particular focus on beliefs about visual, auditory, and kinesthetic (VAK) learning styles; the study investigated VAK belief sources and justification, and the ways those beliefs were enacted in classroom practice. 660 teachers in Mississippi were surveyed, with the large majority (94.5%) reporting they believed that students’ learning styles are important for learning. Most teachers had been introduced to the idea in teacher preparation coursework, and few had heard about information suggesting learning styles were not supported by research. Teachers reported that they considered learning styles to be useful for student grouping, assessments, and instructional delivery. Implications for bridging educational psychology research and teacher practices are discussed in light of findings.

<p>Students hold a number of personal theories about education that influence motivation and achievement in the classroom: theories about their own abilities, knowledge, and the learning process. Therefore, college instructors have a great interest in helping to develop adaptive personal theories in their students. The current studies investigated whether specific messages that instructors send in college classroom might serve as a mechanism of personal theory development. Across 2 studies, 17 college instructors and 401 students completed surveys assessing their personal theories about education at the beginning and end of college courses. Students and instructors reported hearing and sending many messages in the classroom, including instructor help messages, conciliatory messages, uncertainty in the field messages, differential ability messages and generalized positive and negative feedback. Between-class and within-class differences in message reports were associated with students’ personal theories at the end of their courses, controlling for initial personal theories. Students’ initial personal theories were also related to the messages students reported hearing. The findings demonstrate the utility of assessing non-content messages in college classrooms as potential mechanisms for changing students’ personal theories in college. Implications for research and practice are discussed.</p> / Dissertation

Epistemic beliefs are individuals’ beliefs about the nature of knowledge, how knowledge is constructed, and how knowledge can be justified. This study employed a mixed-methods approach to examine: (a) middle and high school students’ self-reported epistemic beliefs (quantitative) and epistemic beliefs revealed from practice (qualitative) during a problem-based, scientific inquiry unit, (b) How do middle and high school students’ epistemic beliefs contribute to the construction of students’ problem solving processes, and (c) how and why do students’ epistemic beliefs change by engaging in PBL. Twenty-one middle and high school students participated in a summer science class to investigate local water quality in a 2-week long problem-based learning (PBL) unit. The students worked in small groups to conduct water quality tests at in their local watershed and visited several stakeholders for their investigation. Pretest and posttest versions of the Epistemological Beliefs Questionnaire were conducted to assess students’ self-reported epistemic beliefs before and after the unit. I videotaped and interviewed three groups of students during the unit and conducted discourse analysis to examine their epistemic beliefs revealed from scientific inquiry activities and triangulate with their self-reported data. There are three main findings from this study. First, students in this study selfreported relatively sophisticated epistemic beliefs on the pretest. However, the comparison between their self-reported beliefs and beliefs revealed from practice indicated that some students were able to apply sophisticated beliefs during the unit while others failed to do so. The inconsistency between these two types of epistemic beliefs may due to students’ inadequate cognitive ability, low validity of self-report measure, and the influence of contextual factors. Second, qualitative analysis indicated that students’ epistemic beliefs of the nature of knowing influenced their problem solving processes and construction of arguments during their inquiry activities. Students with more sophisticated epistemic beliefs acquired knowledge, presented solid evidence, and used it to support their claims more effectively than their peers. Third, students’ self-reported epistemic beliefs became significantly more sophisticated by engaging in PBL. Findings from this study can potentially help researchers to better understand the relation between students’ epistemic beliefs and their scientific inquiry practice.

Die Förderung epistemischer Überzeugungen gilt als wichtige Aufgabe in der Lehrerbildung. Insbesondere im bildungswissenschaftlichen Begleitstudium tendieren Studierende jedoch zu ungünstigen Überzeugungen: Bildungswissenschaftliches Wissen wird im Vergleich zu fachwissenschaftlichem Wissen als wenig systematisiert, subjektiv und kaum praxisrelevant beurteilt. Wie Studierende dabei unterstützt werden können, angemessene Überzeugungen zum Wissen in den Bildungswissenschaften zu entwickeln, ist empirisch noch unzureichend untersucht. Aus diesem Grund wurden literaturgestützt drei Kurzinterventionen entwickelt, die auf je spezifischen Förderstrategien gründen: (1) Direkt-explizite Adressierung von epistemischen Überzeugungen, (2) indirekt-implizite Adressierung und (3) Kombination aus direkten und indirekten Förderansätzen. Die Eignung der drei Interventionen wurde in einem quasi-experimentellen Mixed-Methods-Design in zwei Teilstudien untersucht. Die quantitative Teilstudie umfasste eine Veränderungsmessung. Es konnte gezeigt werden, dass sich die Studierenden aus der direkten und der kombinierten Intervention tendenziell in Richtung reflektierter Überzeugungen weiterentwickelt haben. Die indirekte Intervention blieb dagegen wirkungslos. Die qualitative Teilstudie umfasste die Analyse von Follow-Up-Interviews, die im Nachgang der Interventionen mit teilnehmenden Studierenden geführt wurden. Die Ergebnisse stützten erstens die Befunde aus der quantitativen Teilstudie, wobei ein besonderes Veränderungspotenzial für die kombinierte Intervention deutlich wurde. Zweitens konnten die zugrunde liegenden Wirkweisen der verschiedenen Interventionen herausgearbeitet werden. Drittens konnten weiterführende Erkenntnisse zu den grundlegenden Veränderungsmechanismen epistemischer Überzeugungen erzielt werden. Das bestehende Veränderungsmodell epistemischer Überzeugungen konnte weiterentwickelt und um individuelle Faktoren ergänzt werden. / Fostering epistemic beliefs is considered an important task in teacher education. However, especially in educational science, preservice teachers tend to hold unfavorable epistemic beliefs: Compared to knowledge in other disciplines, educational knowledge is perceived to be less systematic, subjective and irrelevant for classroom practice. However, how students can be supported in developing adequate beliefs about educational knowledge has not been sufficiently explored. For this reason, three short-term interventions were designed, each based on specific approaches to elicit changes in students’ epistemic beliefs (1) direct-explicit approach, (2) indirect-implicit approach, and (3) combination of direct and indirect approaches. The effectiveness of the three interventions was investigated in a quasi-experimental mixed-methods design in two studies. In the quantitative study a measurement of change was performed. It was shown that students from the direct and combined intervention groups tended to develop more adequate beliefs. The indirect intervention, in contrast, can be considered ineffective. The qualitative study involved the analysis of follow-up interviews conducted with participating students after the interventions. First, the results supported the findings from the quantitative study, highlighting a particular potential for change in the combined intervention. Second, the underlying ways in which the interventions stimulated change were identified. Third, further insights into the underlying mechanisms of epistemic change were obtained. The existing model of epistemic change was refined and complemented by individual factors that can influence the process of epistemic change.

No description available.

No description available.

Cette recherche a consisté en le développement et la validation d'outils psychométriques servant à mesurer chez les étudiants une évolution dans les croyances épistémiques (c.-à-d. les croyances concernant les sciences, l'enseignement et l'apprentissage) et les attitudes épistémiques (c.-à-d. les conceptions, affects et valeurs envers des objets épistémiques comme la connaissance ou le savoir scientifique). Les valeurs et affects sont d'une importance primordiale dans l'éducation épistémologique, comme le sont les croyances ou les valeurs. Toutefois, ils semblent souvent négligés dans les approches pédagogiques ou dans la recherche. De plus, avant la présente recherche, il n'y avait pas d'instrument quantitatif fiable adapté au contexte français pour mesurer les croyances envers les sciences, l'enseignement et l'apprentissage. Pour ces raisons, nous avons développé dans la langue française un Questionnaire sur les Attitudes et les Croyances Epistémiques (QACE ou EBAI en anglais pour Epistemic Beliefs and Attitudes Inventory), qui est composé d'échelles de Likert et de différentiateurs sémantiques. Nous avons mené trois études. La première (Study 1) a été menée en France auprès de 283 étudiants pour explorer la structure de la première version du QACE (QACE1). Ensuite, cette version été utilisée pour évaluer l'impact de deux modules d'épistémologie sur les populations d'étudiants concernées. Les résultats ont indiqué une bonne consistance interne des échelles et leur capacité à mesurer des changements significatifs dans les attitudes et croyances épistémiques des étudiants. Dans une deuxième étude menée au Vietnam, nous avons examiné les propriétés psychométriques d'une traduction vietnamienne du QACE1 auprès de 228 étudiants ou professeurs (Study 2). Un résultat marquant est que les différentiateurs sémantiques se sont révélé être des outils novateurs simples et prometteurs pour mesurer les attitudes et croyances épistémiques. Cela peut être expliqué par leur robustesse psychométrique, leur forte sensibilité pour discriminer entre les groupes et la facilité avec laquelle on peut les adapter dans une autre culture. Troisièmement, la version préliminaire de l'instrument a été améliorée. Nous avons ensuite conduit en France une étude de validation de cette nouvelle version (QACE2) après de 729 étudiants (Study 3). Plusieurs construits théoriquement apparentés (comme le Epistemological Beliefs Inventory de Schraw et al., 2002; le Cognitive Complexity Indicator indiquant les position de Perry à partir du questionnaire Learning Environment Preferences de Moore, 1989; et l'échelle de dogmatisme de Shearman & Levine, 2006) ont été utilisés pour établir la validité du QACE2. Les résultats de la validation croisée sur les moitiés d'échantillons et de la fiabilité test-retest ont mis en évidence que le QACE2 est un outil fiable, stable et valide pour mesurer les croyances et attitudes épistémiques. Cette recherche a ouvert de nombreuses perspectives concernant, notamment, la vérification de la capacité du QACE2 à mesurer l'impact de modules d'épistémologie, la vérification de son adaptation à d'autres contextes francophones ou encore l'utilisation potentielle des différentiateurs sémantiques pour les recherches interculturelles sur l'épistémologie personnelle. / This research has focused on developing and validating psychometric tools to measure changes in university students' epistemic beliefs (i.e., beliefs about science, teaching, and learning) and epistemic attitudes (i.e., conceptions, affects, and values towards epistemic objects e.g., knowledge, scientific knowledge). Epistemic affects and values are of primary importance in epistemological education, as epistemic beliefs or conceptions do. However they seem to be often neglected in the pedagogical and research approaches. Moreover, before the present research, there was no reliable quantitative instrument to measure beliefs about science, learning and teaching specifically adapted to the French context. For these reasons, we developed the Epistemic Beliefs and Attitudes Inventory (EBAI), a set of Likert-type and semantic differential scales. We conducted three studies. The first study (Study 1) was conducted in France on 283 university students to explore the structure of the first version of the EBAI (EBAI1). The EBAI1 has then been used to evaluate the impact of two scientific epistemology related modules on the corresponding two students' populations. Results indicated robust internal consistencies of the scales and their ability to measure changes in students' epistemic beliefs and attitudes. In a second study, we preliminarily examined the psychometric properties of a Vietnamese translation of the EBAI1 in Vietnam with 228 participants, university students and teachers (Study 2). The results unravelled inadequacies of some scales to the Vietnamese context. One striking result is that the semantic differential scales appeared to be promising innovative and simple tools to measure epidemic attitudes and epistemic beliefs. We explain that by their strong psychometric properties, their high sensitivity in group discrimination, and the easiness to adapt them to another culture. Thirdly, the preliminary version of the instrument was revised for improvement and strengthening. We then conducted, in France, a validation study of this new version (EBAI2) among 729 students (Study 3). Several theoretically related constructs (e.g., general epistemological beliefs measured by the Epistemological Beliefs Inventory, Schraw et al., 2002; Cognitive Complexity Indicator indicating Perry's positions measured by the Learning Environment Preferences, Moore, 1989; and dogmatism measured by the Dogmatism Scale, Shearman & Levine, 2006) were used to establish the construct validity of the updated instrument (EBAI2). Results of double-split cross-validation and test-retest reliability showed a high reliability and temporal stability of the EBAI2. In summary, the findings supported that the EBAI2 is a reliable, stable and valid tool to measure epistemic beliefs and attitudes. This research opened many perspectives such as, for instance, checking for the EBAI2 ability to measure the impact of scientific epistemology related modules, checking for its adaptation to other francophone contexts, or using semantic differentials for cross-cultural researches in personal epistemology.