Education is a social discipline

Introduction

Education is a social discipline. Epistemology is about the foundations of knowledge. You would think they cross paths, but often they don’t.Educators like to ‘gloss over the difficult parts’. Epistemology is about finding a solution no matter if it is easy or difficult. They are like rhetorical opposites

More about the subject

The subject of epistemology is a philosophical anchor theme. Traditionally, philosophy examines such basic concepts as truth, existence or reality. Philosophy to DNS is a branch of curiosity. The active agent is called a philosopher. He or she is somebody who seeks to understand the very nature of life and death, of ideals and reality, but the modern philosopher should first and foremost show curiosity in cases of importance for the living and for the future, should seek solutions to the big issues of our time and should place himself as an agent for his findings so as to spearhead movements:

•           to protect the environment, because the philosopher had found nature suffering;

•           to spearhead movements of Fighting with The Poor, because the modern philosopher had found madness surrounding The Poor in the form of oppression and profiteering and exploitation, or

•           to spearhead a website organised as a totally new vision of media, because of the lies and distortions of reality coming from the traditional media outlets

•           or other endeavours which promote solutions for our planet and its beings

A philosopher deals with reality

So, our philosopher should hurry up and identify reality as our reality, and not some shady substitute of a school of thought for our true human conditions. When we now go back to the anchor theme of epistemology, knowing it to be a branch of philosophy, we better remember our very own understanding of a philosopher as measured on his tasks. Our philosopher is a public servant, whether paid by the public or not. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that concerns itself with knowledge, with cognition.

Why epistemology in teaching and learning is important

You will immediately understand the reason for having this anchor theme at DNS. The teacher operates knowledge by many means. A teacher creates new knowledge. A teacher knows that he must possess much knowledge. They will understand our reasons for offering him a view into epistemology, the science of knowledge or cognition.

Epistemology does not only concern itself with knowledge as such. Rather, it investigates the foundations for knowledge, the scope of knowledge, meaning how much can we know and how deep can we dig into our knowledge before we must give up or it cracks, and finally, and possibly most importantly, epistemology concerns itself with the validity of knowledge.

When you study epistemology, you choose an angle to start from. You might use logic as an entrance point to study knowledge by researching certain elements of knowledge for its logic in relation to good or bad reasoning for itself.

Methods of epistemology

You might study epistemology linguistically or psychologically in order to research how certain knowledge is processed by we humans. Will knowledge change when we change language, or just change words we use for it? Which part of our psyche do we use when processing knowledge? Do we use the whole brain or only some parts to store knowledge, and how do we store it? Do we know that what we know is knowledge?

Validating justified true beliefs

Traditional epistemology is concerned with knowledge, with what we know, as something justifying belief. Or, let us put it like this: We believe that when we know what we know, it is true. Why would we call it knowledge if it proved not true to the bones? That is knowledge as justified true belief.

Of course, an epistemological challenge is to figure out how we can justify or, nice is nice, validate true belief.

Human agents

Another theme to consider during the work with this anchor theme is whether there is such a thing as a human agent, called you, an agent embedded in the world of reality like modern time journalists are embedded with the aggressors during wars of conquest. The interesting thing here is whether knowledge is created or whether it comes to us because of what we do in this world, or if knowledge comes to us because of how our brains work.

Neuroscience in epistemology

DNS operates mainly with an epistemological model based on new understandings of how our human brains work. In short, our brains are unique, the sensory inputs vary and there is no one identical machine model of either brain or mind.

Epistemology must ally itself with the neurosciences and with brain research in order to research and eventually find more and more clues to how knowledge is born.  We need to understand how knowledge has come to each of us, how we can believe what we do believe but do not know the absolute truth about, and how a so to speak naturalised epistemology can serve our pedagogy.

Our teaching and learning processes depend on knowledge, so we need to explore how it can serve our communication, which service to mankind is to move bits of information in compressed form, and how it can serve our philosophy, which needs to take on quite another dress of arguments and themes of mind research in order to bring forward results for the sake of mankind in dire straits.

At DNS we are surely very content to present epistemology to you, expecting happy and exciting hours by studying and debating and creating new knowledge about knowledge.

You are not alone

Finally, and just to make sure that you should not feel all alone because the anchor theme of epistemology seems a new kid on the block in your book: One of the three most globally influential personalities throughout the history of man, the Chinese teacher and philosopher Confucius, in his “Analects” from about 500 years before Christ, answers questions in ways in which the knowledge about matters are handled in a masterly fashion.

Just for the record, we shall add that the two other personalities are Gautama, the Buddha, and the master-maker of miracles who ended his life on the cross, Jesus Christ.

The Greek philosopher Plato pondered these issues in his essentialist ideas as far back as 300 years before Christ. In modern times, Descartes’ slogan “Cogito Ergo Sum” brought him on the track of removing doubts in order to have a secure foundation for knowledge.

In our time, both Nobel Prize winners and both neuroscientists, G.M. Edelman has developed epistemology to its high water mark, while Eric R. Kandel has specialised in the emergence of a New Science of the Mind, thereby giving knowledge a brain and our brains knowledge.

You are not alone. But because you now come, these other fine gentlemen will be in better company. They deserve it. You deserve them

 

2.2 Epistemology and theories of learning

2.2.1 What is epistemology?

In the dinner party scenario, Stephen and Caroline had quite different beliefs about the nature of knowledge. The issue here is not who was right, but that we all have implicit beliefs about the nature of knowledge, what constitutes truth, how that truth is best validated, and, from a teaching perspective, how best to help people to acquire that knowledge. The basis of that belief will vary, depending on the subject matter, and, in some areas, such as social sciences, even within a common domain of knowledge. It will become clear that our choice of teaching approaches and even the use of technology are absolutely dependent on beliefs and assumptions we have about the nature of knowledge, about the requirements of our subject discipline, and about how we think students learn. We will also see that there are some common, shared beliefs about academic knowledge that transcend disciplinary boundaries, but which separate academic knowledge from general, ‘every day’ knowledge.

The way we teach in higher education will be driven primarily by our beliefs or even more importantly, by the commonly agreed consensus within an academic discipline about what constitutes valid knowledge in the subject area. The nature of knowledge centres on the question of how we know what we know. What makes us believe that something is ‘true’? Questions of this kind are epistemological in nature. Hofer and Pintrich (1997) state:

‘Epistemology is a branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and justification of knowledge.’

The famous argument at the British Association in 1860 between Thomas Huxley and the Bishop of Oxford, Samuel Wilberforce, over the origin of species is a classic example of the clash between beliefs about the foundations of knowledge. Wilberforce argued that Man was created by God; Huxley argued that Man evolved through natural selection. Bishop Wilberforce believed he was right because ‘true’ knowledge was determined through faith and interpretation of holy scripture; Professor Huxley believed he was right because ‘true’ knowledge was derived through empirical science and rational skepticism.

An important part of higher education is aimed at developing students’ understanding, within a particular discipline, of the criteria and values that underpin academic study of that discipline, and these include questions of what constitutes valid knowledge in that subject area. For many experts in a particular field, these assumptions are often so strong and embedded that the experts may not even be openly conscious of them unless challenged. But for novices, such as students, it often takes a great deal of time to understand fully the underlying value systems that drive choice of content and methods of teaching.

Our epistemological position therefore has direct practical consequences for how we teach.

2.2.2 Epistemology and theories of learning

Most teachers in the school/k-12 sector will be familiar with the main theories of learning, but because instructors in post-secondary education are hired primarily for their subject experience, or research or vocational skills, it is essential to introduce and discuss, if only briefly, these main theories. In practice, even without formal training or knowledge of different theories of learning, all teachers and instructors will approach teaching within one of these main theoretical approaches, whether or not they are aware of the educational jargon surrounding these approaches. Also, as online learning, technology-based teaching, and informal digital networks of learners have evolved, new theories of learning are emerging.

With a knowledge of alternative theoretical approaches, teachers and instructors are in a better position to make choices about how to approach their teaching in ways that will best fit the perceived needs of their students, within the very many different learning contexts that teachers and instructors face. This is particularly important when addressing many of the requirements of learners in a digital age that are set out in Chapter 1. Furthermore, the choice of or preference for one particular theoretical approach will have major implications for the way that technology is used to support teaching.

In fact, there is a huge amount of literature on theories of learning, and I am aware that the treatment here is cursory, to say the least. Those who would prefer a more detailed introduction to theories of learning could, for an obscene price, purchase Schunk (2011), or for a more reasonable price Harasim (2012). The aim of my book though is not to be comprehensive in terms of in-depth coverage of all learning theories, but to provide a basis on which to suggest and evaluate different ways of teaching to meet the diverse needs of learners in a digital age.

In the following sections I examine four of the most common theories of learning, and the underlying epistemologies that drive them.

References

Harasim, L. (2012) Learning Theory and Online Technologies New York/London: Routledge

Hofer, B. and Pintrich, P. (1997) ‘The development of epistemological theories: beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning’ Review of Educational Research Vol. 67, No. 1, pp. 88-140

Schunk, D. (2011) Learning Theories: An Educational Perspective Boston MA: Allyn and Bacon

*POSTPRINT: This is the final, accepted version of a manuscript published as

Green, H. J., & Hood, M. (2013). Significance of epistemological beliefs

for teaching and learning psychology: A review. Psychology Learning and

Teaching, 12, 168-178. doi: 10.2304/plat.2013.12.2.168**

Significance of Epistemological Beliefs for Teaching and Learning Psychology: 

A Review

Heather J. Green and Michelle Hood

Behavioural Basis of Health Program, Griffith Health Institute and School of Applied

Psychology

Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia

Running head: SIGNIFICANCE OF EPISTEMOLOGICAL BELIEFS

Word Count:     3,971

Correspondence should be addressed to:  Dr Heather Green, School of Applied

Psychology, Gold Coast campus, Griffith University Qld 4222, Australia

Email: H.Green@griffith.edu.au; Phone +61 7 5552 9086; Fax: +61 7 5552 8291

Significance of Epistemological Beliefs  1

Author Biographies

Heather J. Green PhD is a Lecturer in the School of Applied Psychology,

Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia. A registered psychologist, she teaches

clinical and health psychology. Her main disciplinary research interest is psycho-

oncology and her main teaching interest is self-knowledge and skills development in

students of professional training programs.

Michelle Hood PhD is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Applied Psychology,

Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia. A registered psychologist, she teaches

educational and developmental psychology. Her main disciplinary research interest is

literacy and numeracy development and achievement motivation and her main

teaching interest is in developing research methodology and statistics skills and

knowledge of developmental psychology in undergraduate psychology.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Dr Debra Bath, Prof John O’Gorman, and two anonymous

reviewers for their helpful feedback on earlier drafts of this paper.

Significance of Epistemological Beliefs  2

Abstract

Beliefs about the nature of knowledge, termed “epistemological beliefs”, are relevant

to understanding educational strategies of both learners and teachers.  Epistemological

beliefs arguably have particular relevance in the discipline and profession of

psychology, due to an emphasis on integration of knowledge from multiple theoretical

perspectives.

,

.

Beliefs  about  the  nature  of  knowledge  influence  learning  and  teaching

(Bendixen  &  Rule,  2004).  These  “epistemological  beliefs”  (EB)  can  vary  across

individuals and disciplines (Hofer, 2001; Kaartinen-Koutaniemi & Lindblom-Ylänne,

2008).  Despite  their  importance,  to  our  knowledge,  there  is  no  previous  published

review of EB specific to teaching and learning psychology. 

EB  are  arguably  important  to  both  academic  and  applied  psychology.

Development of scientific reasoning skills has been recommended as a central goal of

psychology education (Cranney et al., 2008; Halonen et al., 2003). Similarly, codes of

ethics state that applying psychological knowledge requires awareness of the need for

ongoing  learning  and  limitations  of  existing  knowledge  (Australian  Psychological

Society,  2007).  A  critical  perspective  regarding  new  knowledge  requires  relatively

sophisticated  EB  (Halonen  et  al.,  2003).  Therefore,  for  graduates  to  apply

psychological knowledge ethically,  technical  skills need  to  be  accompanied by skills

for discovering, interpreting,  and  integrating relevant evidence,  which involves well-

developed EB.   

Other  terms  for  EB and  related  concepts  include  “personal  epistemologies”,

“epistemic  beliefs”,  “epistemic  cognition”,  and  “epistemological  resources”,  among

others  (Elby  &  Hammer,  2001;  Murphy,  Alexander,  Greene,  &  Hennessey,  2012).

The present review uses the term EB,  for  consistency. Concepts and  measurement of

EB will be discussed,  followed by findings and  recommendations  regarding learning

and teaching.

Significance of Epistemological Beliefs  4

Concepts  

Perry’s  pioneering research  in the  1950s  and  1960s (e.g.,  Perry,  1968)  used

annual  interviews  to  show  that  university  students’  conceptions  of  the  nature  of

knowledge  develop  over  time.  Less  experienced  tertiary students  are more  likely to

demonstrate  dualist  beliefs,  whereby  knowledge  is  viewed  as  absolute  and  the

teacher’s role is to communicate that knowledge. In the next stage, multiplism, there is

acknowledgement  of multiple  perspectives,  but still  the idea  that  there is  a specific,

yet  undiscovered,  truth.  Later,  relativism  acknowledges  that  some  viewpoints  are

better  than  others.  The  most  sophisticated  beliefs,  commitment  within  relativism,

involve making and evaluating  flexibly held commitments to beliefs that  incorporate

personal  values  (Brownlee, Boulton-Lewis,  &  Purdie, 2002; Hofer,  2001). Later EB

research,  including  children’s  and  adults’  education,  has  identified  similar

developmental  stages, termed  realist, absolutist,  multiplist and  evaluativist by  Kuhn

(2005; 2009).

For example, a student with dualist (or absolutist) EB might explain IQ score

as “the  way you measure  intelligence”. Differing  responses would  be expected  with

multiplist EB,  e.g., “one  of the  ways to  measure intelligence”;  relativist EB, e.g.,  “a

measure of performance on a standardised test that is believed to reflect the construct

of intelligence”, or  commitment  within relativism (evaluativist)  EB,  e.g., “a measure

of performance on a standardised test that is believed to reflect current understanding

of the  construct of intelligence”.  (A single response  is not  sufficient to  identify EB;

these examples are offered as illustrations only.)  

Relatively  few  students  reach  the  “highest”  stages  (Entwistle  &  Peterson,

2004; Kuhn, Cheney, & Weinstock, 2000). Also, students may return to “earlier”, less

sophisticated  EB, particularly  during  transitions,  such  as  from  school  to university

Significance of Epistemological Beliefs  5

(Hofer & Pintrich, 1997; Weinstock, Neuman, & Glassner, 2006). Affect, particularly

anxiety, potentially plays a role in this regression (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997) as well as

in other aspects of shifts in EB (Bendixen & Rule, 2004).

Perry’s  higher  categories  overlap  with  “constructivist  epistemology”.

Constructivism  posits  that  individuals  learn  through  experience,  deriving  meanings

that are influenced by context and  by their previous knowledge and viewpoints (Lea,

Stephenson, & Troy, 2003; Muis,  2007).  A  constructivist  approach  to learning aligns

with EB at the relativism or commitment within relativism stages, due to its emphasis

on  the  importance  of  students’  experiences  and  perspectives  in  developing  their

knowledge.  More  generally,  EB can  be viewed  as a  “psychological approach  to the

philosophical field of epistemology” (Hofer, 2008, p. 5). 

Alternative  developmental  models  to  Perry’s  include  Women’s  Ways  of

Knowing,  the  Epistemological  Reflection  Model,  and  Reflective  Judgment  (Hofer,

2001).  Despite  a  lack  of  consensus  on  one  model  (Bendixen  &  Rule,  2004),

longitudinal research supports the usefulness of developmental models. For  example,

a review of longitudinal research on Reflective Judgment found that most individuals

either maintained or progressed EB, with at most 16% displaying regressions (King &

Kitchener, 2004). However, regressions are likely to be more frequent if students shift

learning contexts (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997). 

Developmental models of EB are complemented by models that address other

aspects,  such  as  motivation,  affect,  and  dimensionality  of  beliefs.  Regarding

dimensions, reviewers have suggested that beliefs about what knowledge is (certainty

and  simplicity  of knowledge)  are  distinct  from beliefs  about  processes  of  knowing

(source  and  justification  of  knowledge;  Bendixen  &  Rule, 2004;  Hofer &  Pintrich,

1997). For example,  beliefs that scientific knowledge  is tentative  rather than certain,

Significance of Epistemological Beliefs  6

and complex rather than simple, would generally be viewed as more sophisticated EB

(although  see  Elby  &  Hammer,  2001,  for  critique  of  “consensus”  views  of  EB

sophistication).  Similarly,  viewing  the  source  of  knowledge  as  “experts”  would  be

considered  less  sophisticated  than  viewing  the  source  as  an  array  of  evidence

potentially varying  in quality,  support  for or against  a proposition,  and  replicability.

Structure of EB and boundaries with other constructs  continue  to  be debated (Chinn,

Buckland, & Samarapungavan, 2011), but reviews have consistently supported utility

of  EB  for  understanding  and  improving  teaching  and  learning,  due  to  associations

between  EB  and  both  learning  and  motivation  (Bendixen  &  Rule,  2004;  Greene,

Muis,  &  Pieschl,  2010;  Hofer,  2001;  Hofer  &  Pintrich,  1997;  King  &  Kitchener,

2004;  Schommer-Aikins,  2004).  Potential  cultural  differences  in  EB  have also  been

explored (Braten, Gil, Stromso, & Vidal-Abarca, 2009; Khine, 2008).

Measurement

EB  measures  vary  with  different  models  (e.g., see  reviews  by Braten  et  al.,

2009;  Buehl,  2008;  Hofer,  2006;  Limón,  2006).  Many  studies  have  used  the

Schommer Epistemological Questionnaire  (EQ;  Schommer, 1990) or have adapted it 

(Jehng, Johnson,  & Anderson, 1993;  Kardash  & Wood, 2000;  Schraw, Bendixen,  &

Dunkle, 2002). EQ factors of Simple Knowledge, Certain Knowledge, Innate Ability,

and Quick Learning have fair internal consistency (e.g., Cronbach alphas between .54

to .76, Schommer-Aikins, 2004). Unfortunately, concerns about the theoretical  basis,

poor replicability of factors, and reliability of the EQ and related measures limit their

usefulness  (DeBacker, Crowson,  Beesley, Thoma,  & Hestevold,  2008). More  recent

written measures include the Connotative Aspects of EB (Stahl & Bromme, 2007) and

the Topic Specific EB Questionnaire (Braten et al., 2009). 

Significance of Epistemological Beliefs  7

Perry  (1968)  used  interviews.  A  widely  used  format  is  the  semi-structured

Reflective Judgment  Interview (King  & Kitchener,  2004).  The student is  questioned

about  several  controversial  topics  (e.g.,  the  accuracy of  news reporting).  Questions

include  the  student’s  beliefs,  their  certainty  about  those  beliefs,  and  how  people

including  experts  may  disagree  on  this  topic.  Internal  consistency  is  high  (median

Cronbach’s alphas around .80; King & Kitchener,  2004).  A  written adaptation of the

Reflective Judgment Interview also has acceptable pre-post test reliability (Valanides

&  Angeli,  2005).  There  is  to  date  no  consensus  on  EB  measurement  and  it  is

recommended to consider relevance for the intended purpose, as well as psychometric

properties when selecting measures.

Domain Specificity: EB in Psychology versus Other Disciplines

EB  may  be  domain-  or  discipline-specific  (Hofer,  2001;  Kaartinen-

Koutaniemi  &  Lindblom-Ylänne,  2008),  although  domain-general  EB  may co-exist

(Muis,  Bendixen,  &  Haerle,  2006).  Domain-specificity  has  been  examined  by

comparing students of different  disciplines and by comparing students’ EB regarding

knowledge  domains.  Paulsen  and  Wells  (1998)  assessed  EB  among  290  university

students majoring in  disciplines that  were  hard-soft  (“hard” emphasising one specific

paradigm;  Biglan,  1973a)  or  pure-applied  (“applied”  emphasising  applying  subject

matter  to  practical  problems).  Psychology  is  “soft”  and  “pure”  (Biglan,  1973a,

1973b).  As  predicted,  students  from  “soft”  and  “pure” disciplines  had significantly

more  sophisticated  EB  than  did  students from  “hard”  or  “applied”  disciplines.  For

example,  social sciences  and humanities  (soft  and pure)  students were  less likely to

have  naïve  beliefs in  simple  or  certain  knowledge than  were engineering  (hard  and

applied)  or  business  (soft  and  applied)  students.  Karseth  and  Solbrekke  (2006)

interviewed  Norwegians studying  law  or psychology.  They  found that  law  students

Significance of Epistemological Beliefs  8

were  more  likely  to  view  their  task  as  learning  a  single,  “correct”  legal  method,

whereas  psychology  students  emphasised  the  importance  of  understanding  multiple

theoretical perspectives.

Longitudinal  German  research  measured  EB  in  final  year  high  school

(N=2,854)  and  second  year  university  (N=1,495;  Trautwein  &  Lüdtke,  2007).  EB

predicted  students’  choice  of  discipline  (self-selection  hypothesis  of  EB-discipline

associations)  and  changed in  different ways  depending on  the  discipline the  student

studied  (socialisation  hypothesis;  Trautwein  &  Lüdtke,  2007).  Specifically,  high

school certainty beliefs were highest among students who chose business at university

and  lowest  among  students  who  chose  social  science.  By  second  year  university,

certainty  beliefs  declined  further  in  social  science  and  humanities  students,  but

increased in engineering students. 

Examining  individuals’  discipline-specific  EB,  Hofer  (2000)  found  that

psychology students’ EB about science and psychology differed. They believed that in

psychology, knowledge was less certain, truth was less attainable, personal experience

was more important as a source  of  knowledge, and knowledge  from experts  was less

important  compared  with science.  Similarly,  Estes,  Chandler,  Horvath, and  Backus

(2003) found  that undergraduate  students who  had studied  psychology believed  that

psychological  phenomena  were less  knowable  through scientific  methods than  were

biological  phenomena,  and  that  psychological  phenomena  could  be  understood  via

common  sense  and  personal  experience.  These  data  imply  increased  readiness  to

develop  sophisticated  EB  regarding  psychology  than  some  other  topics,  although

alternative  explanations  such  as  lack  of  understanding  of  scientific  methods  in

psychology are also possible. More sophisticated EB regarding psychology than other

fields  have  been  found  among  students  from  a  range  of  disciplines,  with  the  most

Significance of Epistemological Beliefs  9

pronounced difference found  among  students at  higher  year levels  (unpublished data

from Wood, Kitchener & Jensen, cited by King & Kitchener, 2004). 

Students’  EB  change  with  time  in  psychology  programs.  Focus  groups

conducted  with beginning,  second  and  third  year psychology  students  in  the United

Kingdom  (UK)  showed  that  beginning  students  viewed  psychology as  being  open-

ended  and  creative (suggesting  relativist  and  constructivist epistemologies),  but also

as  constituting  a  body of  knowledge (suggesting  a dualist  epistemology; Wallwork,

Mahoney, & Mason, 2006). Second and third-year students referred to the discipline’s

complexity,  with  this  being  viewed  more  positively  by  third  years.  This  implied

greater acceptance of relativism by advanced students.

Despite  changes  over  time,  Kaartinen-Koutaniemi  and  Lindblom-Ylänne

(2008) found that EB still  varied  between masters students of psychology,  pharmacy

or  theology  in  Finland  (N=52).  Psychology  students  placed  more  emphasis  on

research  methods  and  quantitative  analysis  in  evaluating  knowledge,  whereas

theology students were more likely to  value  intuition. Emphasis on  scientific method

and  its  applicability  to  understanding  psychological  phenomena  was  more  evident

among these psychology Masters students than the undergraduate students in Estes et

al.’s  (2003)  study.  Thus,  experience  in  psychology  fosters  appreciation  that

psychological phenomena are knowable by scientific methods.

Lonka  and  Lindblom-Ylänne  (1996)  assessed  EB  in  first-  and  fifth-year

psychology and  medicine students.  Among  psychology students, fifth-years  reported

lower mean scores  than  first-years on a factor that  combined high interest in applied

knowledge with low interest in theoretical knowledge. In contrast, these factor scores

increased in advanced medical students, even though both programs qualified students

for  professional practice.  Knight and  Mattick  (2006) found  that  EB of  UK medical

Significance of Epistemological Beliefs  10

students  changed  in  complex ways  that  varied  among different  areas  of knowledge

and  practice.  They  concluded  that  development  of  professional  identity  should  be

considered in conjunction with EB. This may also pertain to psychology students who

are in professional streams of study. 

In  summary,  studies  within  and  across  disciplines  suggest  that  students  are

likely  to  have  more  sophisticated  EB  regarding  psychology  than  many  other

disciplines.  Why might  psychology  foster  sophisticated  EB?  Psychology  focuses  on

critical  thinking,  through  emphasis on  research  methods  and  integrating knowledge

from  multiple theoretical  perspectives  (Reddy,  Hammond, Lewandowska,  Trapp,  &

Marques,  2011).  Psychology  students  are  encouraged  to  develop  scepticism  to

understand  and  justify  sources  of  evidence  and  know  how  to  distinguish  between

different  strength  evidence.  Psychology  also  emphasises  writing  more  than  some

other  disciplines,  which  requires  students  to  compare  and  integrate  competing

knowledge. This may encourage constructivist approaches. 

If  sophisticated  EB  are  fostered  by  studying  psychology,  how  might  this

benefit  students?  One  way  is  via  associations  between  EB  and  students’  learning

approaches and the other is via associations between EB and academic achievement.

Relationship with Learning Approaches

EB may influence learning through a link with learning approaches (Entwistle

&  Peterson,  2004;  Hofer  &  Pintrich,  1997). “Surface”  learning focuses  on outcome

goals such as obtaining a qualification, whereas a “deep” approach involves intrinsic

motivation  and  abstract  meaning.  A  third  “strategic”  approach  involves  striving  to

achieve  highly  while  organising  one’s  time  efficiently  (Cassidy  &  Eachus,  2000).

Naive  EB  have  been  associated  with  surface  learning  approaches  whereas

sophisticated  beliefs  have  been  associated  with  deeper  approaches  (Schreiber  &

Significance of Epistemological Beliefs  11

Shinn, 2003). Entwistle and Peterson (2004) noted that students who viewed learning

as being about transforming or constructing knowledge focused on understanding and

displayed  intrinsic  academic  orientation  and  a  self-regulated  approach  to  learning.

Students  who  viewed  learning  as  being  about  memorising  fact-based  fragments  of

knowledge were more likely to use surface-level rehearsal and memorising strategies.

More generally, Muis (2007) reviewed ways that EB relate to self-regulated learning.

A longitudinal study of Dutch social science, economics, law and arts students

found  that surface  learning frequency  was  stable from  the first  to  third semester  of

study, whereas deep learning strategies increased (Vermetten, Vermunt, & Lodewijks,

1999). Students who viewed knowledge as something for “intake” were less likely to

report deep learning, whereas students who viewed knowledge as “constructive” were

more likely to. Phan (2008) also found that EB affected students’ deep versus surface

learning approaches, but that learning approaches did not affect students’ later EB.

Lonka  and  Lindblom-Ylänne  (1996)  found  that  surface  learning  was

significantly  lower  and  constructivist  epistemology  significantly  higher  among

psychology than medical students, and among fifth- than first-year students. However,

there  was  no interaction between  discipline and year  level. Regardless of  discipline,

students  endorsing  constructivist  epistemology  reported  using  surface  strategies  less

often and deep strategies more often than did dualist students.

Relationship with Academic Achievement

Sophisticated  EB  have  been  associated  with  better  performance  on  both

experimental  tasks  and  course  grades.  Schommer  (1990)  asked  undergraduate

psychology  students  to  write  conclusions  for  and  demonstrate  mastery  of  passages

from psychology or  nutrition. Higher certainty of  knowledge beliefs  were associated

with  absolute  (oversimplified)  conclusions,  whereas  completion  of  more  university

Significance of Epistemological Beliefs  12

courses was associated with more tentative conclusions, reflecting more sophisticated

EB.  Higher  quick  learning  beliefs  were  also  associated  with  oversimplified

conclusions and poorer mastery on the  psychology passage as well as overestimation

of understanding. There was no influence on nutrition passage mastery, but floor and

ceiling  effects  appeared  to  be  a  problem  with  that  passage.  Similarly,  Schommer-

Aikins and Easter (2006) found that business students who believed in quick learning

had  worse reading  comprehension  and poorer  course  grades, whereas  other  EB  did

not correlate with academic outcomes. However, Hofer and Pintrich (1997) criticised

“quick learning” on methodological and conceptual grounds as beliefs about learning

rather than beliefs about knowledge.

Trautwein and Lüdtke (2007) found that higher certainty of knowledge beliefs

in final year high school students were associated with lower grades, after controlling

for cognitive ability and socioeconomic status. Similarly, Phan (2008) found that both

EB  and  learning  approaches  predicted  academic  performance  of  university

mathematics  students,  and  that  learning  approaches  mediated  effects  of  EB  on

academic  performance.  University  physics  students  who  showed  higher  gains  in

conceptual knowledge  during  first  year described  their learning in  ways  that implied

more sophisticated EB (May & Etkina, 2002). 

Among students  in introductory educational  psychology, 90%  of whom  were

studying  to  become  teachers,  more  sophisticated  EB  were  associated  with  higher

course  grade  and  this  relationship  was  mediated  by  both  achievement  goals  and

learning  strategies  (Muis  &  Franco,  2009).  Consistent  with  findings  from  non-

psychology students,  Hofer (2000) found  that certainty and  simplicity of  knowledge

beliefs among 326 psychology undergraduates significantly negatively correlated with

psychology  grade  (r  =-.31)  and  overall  grade  point  average  (r  =-.22).  Thus,  in

Significance of Epistemological Beliefs  13

psychology  and  other disciplines,  more sophisticated  EB are  associated  with  higher

academic achievement.

Teaching

Students  prefer teaching  approaches to  be aligned  with  their present  EB, yet

learning is enhanced when students’ existing conceptions are challenged (Entwistle &

Peterson, 2004).  Student-centred approaches  to learning and teaching  naturally align

with  a  constructivist  epistemology  (Lea  et  al.,  2003).  However,  student-centred

approaches are more often claimed than realised in practice (Lea et al., 2003). 

 Lonka  and  Ahola  (1995)  found  that  “activating”  classes  in  psychology,

intended  to  be student-centred  and, therefore,  involving  constructivist epistemology,

were  associated with  improved student  understanding, study  skills, academic  results

and  final  year  thesis  grades  compared  with  “traditional”  teacher-centred  classes.

Similarly,  UK psychology  students  viewed  student-centred  learning  as  being  more

motivating and effective than teacher-centred learning, but also expressed the need for

sufficient support rather than being left to learn by themselves (Lea et al., 2003).

Focus  groups  conducted  with  beginning,  second  and  third  year  UK

psychology  students  showed  a  shift  in  third-year  students  who  emphasised  the

importance  of personally  experiencing  the  discipline’s  complexity  (Wallwork  et  al.,

2006).  The  authors  suggested  that  aiding  psychology  students’  development  of

independent learning and critical thinking might require educators to avoid providing

increasing  structure  and  support,  because  this may  maintain  information  acquisition

(dualist)  models  of  learning.  Furthermore,  they  stated  that  students  who  view

psychological  knowledge as  requiring information  acquisition may  feel unsupported

and  threatened  by  teaching  strategies  that  encourage  independent  activities  and

consideration of multiple perspectives. 

Significance of Epistemological Beliefs  14

EB  may  also  affect  assessment.  Lea  and  Street  (1998)  noted  that  academic

writing may  be viewed  differently by educators and  students  as  well as by  different

individuals.  They  suggested  an  “academic  literacies”  approach  that  acknowledges

epistemological  variability  among  writing  contexts.  Interviews  revealed  that

academics’  ideas  about  “good”  writing  were  based  in  the  meaning  of  knowledge,

often discipline-specific. However, academics were often unable to identify explicitly

what would  improve poor student  writing from  an epistemological  basis and  instead

more frequently described surface features such as structure and form. More attention

by  teachers  to  the  epistemological  basis  of  their  expectations  would  help  them

communicate  clearer  expectations  and  give  students  feedback  on  core  rather  than

surface issues. Madigan, Johnson, and Linton (1995) noted the epistemological nature

of  psychology’s  key  writing  guide,  the  Publication  Manual  of  the  American

Psychological Association (APA). They argued that more than teach students to write

like  psychologists,  the  Manual  teaches  them  to  “reason  empirically  about  human

behaviour” (p. 434) and to embrace the discipline’s intellectual values; that is, to think

like  psychologists.  Interestingly,  critiques  of  Madigan  et  al.’s  paper  included  the

suggestion  that  the  epistemology  implied  by  the  APA  Manual  is  not  shared  by  all

psychologists (Josselson & Lieblich, 1996).  

Assessment  may  also  affect  students’  beliefs  and  approaches.  Among  first-

and second-year university students studying research methods in health, social work

or counselling, higher  use of  strategic learning  was  related  to both  higher academic

achievement  and  perceived  proficiency  at  course  completion  (Cassidy  &  Eachus,

2000).  Deep  learning  did  not  correlate  with  achievement  or  perceived  proficiency.

The authors suggested that this might reflect that performance rather than learning is

emphasised and rewarded in  higher  education. Certainly French  psychology students

Significance of Epistemological Beliefs  15

reported  perceiving  universities  to  provide  strongest  encouragement  and  incentives

for strategic  goals, even  though  both educators  and students more  strongly  endorsed

deep  learning  goals  (Darnon,  Dompnier,  Delmas,  Pulfrey,  &  Butera,  2009).

Knowledge of EB may help psychology educators to use assessment to facilitate deep

as well as strategic learning.

Explicit versus Implicit Teaching 

The  extent  to  which  it  is  beneficial  to  explicitly  teach  students  about  EB,

compared  with  using  strategies  that  implicitly  foster  more  sophisticated  beliefs,  is

unclear.  Explicit  teaching  regarding  EB  involves  strategies  such  as  students

completing  and  then  discussing  an  EB  measure,  as  used  in  some  educational

psychology  courses  (Hofer,  2001).  Explicit  EB  instructional  studies  have  been

concentrated  in education.  For example,  EB of  pre-service early  childhood teachers

increased  in  sophistication  when  both  explicit  and  implicit  teaching  of  EB  was

included  in  their  university  program  (Brownlee,  Petriwsky,  Thorpe,  Stacey,  &

Gibson, 2011). Explicit instruction regarding EB during teacher training was endorsed

in  a  comprehensive  review  of  teachers’  EB  (Schraw  &  Olafson,  2003).  These

reviewers  suggested  that  explicit  instruction  may  help  teachers  to  develop

pedagogically helpful EB and to use classroom practices that are consistent with these

EB (Schraw & Olafson, 2003).

Hammer and Elby (2002)  demonstrated that teaching strategies  can  implicitly

encourage students  to  use  epistemological resources that  will aid  learning. Examples

given  include  encouraging  student  debate,  using  design  and  construction  activities,

and  using bridging  analogies.  They cited  work  by  Harel  and Papert  (1991,  cited in

Hammer  &  Elby,  2002),  showing  that  students  demonstrated  more  sophisticated

Significance of Epistemological Beliefs  16

epistemological  resources  when  asked  to  design  and  construct  physical  or  virtual

objects than in traditional classroom tasks. 

Kienhues, Bromme, and Stahl (2008) randomly assigned second year German

university  students  to  an instructional  condition  presenting  a unitary  viewpoint  that

was  not  expected  to change  EB,  or  one  presenting contrasting  viewpoints that  was

expected  to  develop  more  sophisticated  beliefs.  Neither  condition  included  explicit

EB instruction.  Approximately 55%  of  the sample was  psychology  students. Results

were  mixed. Some  students with  naïve beliefs  who received  refutational  instruction

developed  more  sophisticated  beliefs.  However,  some  students  with  more

sophisticated  EB  showed  more  naïve  beliefs  following  either  type  of  instruction.

Regression  to  the  mean  might  partly  explain  this  but  it  also  suggests  potential  for

some  types  of  teaching  to  affect  EB  development  adversely.  Overall,  this  study

demonstrated  that  EB could  be changed  by the  instructional context, consistent  with

Hammer and Elby’s (2002) suggestions.

A  review  of  EB  in  mathematics  found  that  instructional  strategies  could

change  children’s  and  adults’  beliefs  about  mathematics  in  ways  that  improved

understanding and performance (Muis, 2004). Similarly, in an intervention study with

graduate students studying introductory statistics for social sciences, Muis and  Duffy

(2012) found  that a class  assigned to  a semester  of constructivist teaching  strategies

including teacher modelling of critical thinking, use of multiple approaches to solving

problems, and making connections to prior knowledge, developed more sophisticated

EB,  used  more constructivist learning  strategies, and achieved  higher course grades,

compared to a control class. Muis (2004) speculated that including explicit instruction

about  EB  as  well as  using teaching  and learning  strategies that  support implicit  EB

Significance of Epistemological Beliefs  17

development might  protect students  from  “regressing” in  EB if  they receive  such an

intervention and then change instructional contexts.

Recommendations for Psychology Education

Based  on  evidence  above  regarding  advantages  of  sophisticated  EB  for

psychology  students  and  potential for  fostering  helpful EB,  we recommend  that  all

psychology teachers acquire  knowledge  of  educational implications of  EB.  Evidence

seems  clear  that  using  learning  and  teaching  strategies  that  implicitly  promote

sophisticated  EB  will  benefit  psychology  students.  A  number  of  authors  have

provided  relevant  suggestions  for  teaching  practice  (e.g.,  Bendixen  &  Rule,  2004;

King  &  Kitchener,  2004;  Muis,  2007).  Strategies  such  as  encouraging  students  to

structure  knowledge  themselves  via  optimally  supportive  learning  environments

(Wallwork  et  al., 2006),  reviewing historical  development of  an  area  (Hofer, 2001),

attending  to  individual  student  variability  and potential  anxiety  about  constructivist

approaches  (Lea  et al.,  2003), and giving  assessment feedback  that emphasises  core

understanding  rather  than  surface  issues  (Lea  &  Street,  1998)  are  demonstrated  or

likely to be helpful in psychology.  

It is unclear whether  explicitly  teaching  psychology students about EB would

add  benefit.  If taught  explicitly, it  is recommended  that  the concept  be revisited,  so

that  students  have an  opportunity  to review  development  of  their beliefs  over time

(Brownlee  et  al.,  2011).  A  recent  report  recommended  explicit  teaching  of

epistemology  from  first  year  psychology  onwards  (Cranney  et  al.,  2008).  Optimal

times  for  explicit  instruction  might  include  transition  periods  such  as  first  year

psychology,  “capstone”  courses,  and  entry  to  Honours  or  postgraduate  training,

because students are believed to be vulnerable to returning to less sophisticated EB at

such  transitions  (Hofer,  2001;  Weinstock  et  al.,  2006).  Explicit  teaching  may  help

Significance of Epistemological Beliefs  18

protect  students  from  regressing  in EB  when changing  learning contexts  and would

also help to develop psychology educators.

Recommendations for Research

  Future  research  should  continue  to  strive  for  clarity  in  concepts  and

measurement.  Important  intervention  questions  regarding  psychology  education

include (a) optimal ways to foster  sophisticated EB among students, (b) mechanisms

by which this occurs, and (c) whether it adds benefit to explicitly teach students about

EB. 

  

Significance of Epistemological Beliefs  19

References

Australian Psychological Society. (2007). Code of ethics. Melbourne, Australia:

Author.

Bendixen, L. D., & Rule, D. C. (2004). An integrative approach to personal

epistemology: A guiding model. Educational Psychologist, 39, 69-80. doi:

10.1207/s15326985ep3901_7

Biglan, A. (1973a). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 195-203. doi: 10.1037/h0034701

Biglan, A. (1973b). Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the

structure and output of university departments. Journal of Applied Psychology,

57, 204-213. doi: 10.1037/h0034699

Braten, I., Gil, L., Stromso, H. I., & Vidal-Abarca, E. (2009). Personal epistemology

across cultures: Exploring Norwegian and Spanish university students'

epistemic beliefs about climate change. Social Psychology of Education, 12,

529-560. doi: 10.1007/s11218-009-9097-z

Brownlee, J., Boulton-Lewis, G., & Purdie, N. (2002). Core beliefs about knowing

and peripheral beliefs about learning: developing an holistic conceptualisation

of epistemological beliefs. Australian Journal of Educational &

Developmental Psychology, 2, 1-16. 

Brownlee, J., Petriwsky, A., Thorpe, K., Stacey, P., & Gibson, M. (2011). Changing

personal epistemologies in early childhood pre-service teachers using an

integrated teaching program. Higher Education Research and Development,

30, 477-490. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2010.518952

Buehl, M. M. (2008). Assessing the multidimensionality of students’ epistemic beliefs

across diverse cultures. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing, knowledge and

beliefs: Epistemological studies across diverse cultures (pp. 65-112).

Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Cassidy, S., & Eachus, P. (2000). Learning style, academic belief systems, self-report

student proficiency and academic achievement in higher education.

Educational Psychology, 20, 307-322. doi: 10.1080/713663740

Chinn, C. A., Buckland, L. A., & Samarapungavan, A. L. A. (2011). Expanding the

dimensions of epistemic cognition: Arguments from philosophy and

psychology. Educational Psychologist, 46, 141-167. doi:

10.1080/00461520.2011.587722

Cranney, J., Provost, S., Katsikitis, M., Martin, F., White, F., & Cohen, L. (2008).

Designing a Diverse, Future-oriented Vision for Undergraduate Psychology in

Australia: Final Investigation Report. Sydney, Australia: University of New

South Wales.

Darnon, C., Dompnier, B., Delmas, F., Pulfrey, C., & Butera, F. (2009). Achievement

goal promotion at university: Social desirability and social utility of mastery

and performance goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96,

119-134. doi: 10.1037/a0012824

DeBacker, T. K., Crowson, H. M., Beesley, A. D., Thoma, S. J., & Hestevold, N. L.

(2008). The challenge of measuring epistemic beliefs: An analysis of three

self-report instruments. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76, 281-312.

doi: 10.3200/JEXE.76.3.281-314

Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2001). On the substance of a sophisticated epistemology.

Science Education, 85, 554-567. doi: 10.1002/sce.102