EPISTEMOLOGICAL BELIEFS: DIFFERENCES AMONG EDUCATORS

A Thesis by

Benjamin A. Walter

Master of Education, Wichita State University, 2009

Bachelor’s of Arts Degree, Kansas State University, 2006

Submitted to the Department of Counseling, Educational and School Psychology

and faculty of the Graduate School of
Wichita State University
in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of
Master or Education

July 2009
© Copyright 2009 by Benjamin A. Walter

All Rights Reserved

EPISTEMOLOGICAL BELIEFS: DIFFERENCES AMONG EDUCATORS

The following faculty members have examined the final copy of this thesis for form and
content, and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for
the degree of Master of Education with a major in Educational Psychology.

Linda Bakken, Committee Chair

Frances Clark, Committee Member

Marie Patterson, Committee Member

Marlene Schommer-Aikins, Committee Member

 ABSTRACT

Epistemological beliefs are personal beliefs about learning and knowledge.

Epistemological beliefs have been found to have important implications for learning, for

example epistemological beliefs have been found to predict academic achievement

(Schommer, Calvert, Gargliette, & Bajaj, 1997), and may predict teaching practices

(White 2001). This study examined the epistemological beliefs of 83 (M= 16, F = 67)

practicing teachers, 62 of whom were enrolled in a graduate teacher education program.

This study utilized the Epistemic Beliefs Inventory (EBI) (Schraw, Bendixen, & Dunkle,

2002) and the four-quadrant method (Schraw & Olafson, 2008) to measure participants’

epistemological beliefs. Differences were found among educators based on education

level, education program, gender, age, licensure type, and order in which participants

received the instruments. The four-quadrant method was found to have small correlations

with the EBI. Limitations and implications are discussed.

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

1. THE PROBLEM 1

1.1 Definitions 2
1.1.1 Epistemology 2
1.1.2 Ontology 2
1.2 Historical Background 3
1.3 A Belief System 4
1.4 Purpose 5
1.5 Overview 5

2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 7

1.1 Literature Review 7

1.2 Pre-Service Teachers and Epistemological Beliefs 8
1.3 Teachers and Epistemological Beliefs 12
1.4 Ontology and Epistemological Beliefs 15
1.5 Graduate Education 17
1.6 Summary 19

3. METHOD 21
3.1 Participants 21
3.2 Instruments 22
3.3 Procedure 23

4. RESULTS 26
4.1 Descriptive Analysis 26
4.2 Statistical Analysis 29
4.3 Ancillary Analysis 31
4.4 Concurrent Validity of Four-Quadrant Scale 34

5. DISCUSSION 35
5.2. Limitations 38
 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Chapter Page

5.3 Implications for Future Research 38

LIST OF REFERENCES 41

APPENDICES 45
Appendix A 46
Appendix B 47
Appendix C 48
Appendix D 51
Appendix E 53
 LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Means, Standard Deviations, Numbers for Gender, Age Groups, 28
Education Level, Instrument Order, Licensure, and Program of Study
2. MANOVA for Education Level 29
3. Zero-Order Correlations of EBI dimensions and four-quadrant scale 30
dimensions
4. MANOVA for Program of Study 31
5. MANOVA for Gender 32
6. MANOVA for Licensure Type 33
7. MANOVA for Age Category 33
8. MANOVA for Instrument Order 34
 CHAPTER 1

THE PROBLEM

Fostering critical thinking and exploring the nature of knowledge with students

are ways teachers can create the right environment to enhance the development of

students’ epistemological beliefs (Hofer, 2001). The teacher can only explore the nature

of knowledge and foster critical thinking if the instructor values epistemological

development and possesses sophisticated epistemological beliefs themselves (Olafson &

Schraw, 2006). Research has indicated that epistemological beliefs are important to

student learning. Schoenfeld (1992), (cited in De Corte, Op ‘T Eynde, & Verchaffel,

2002) has concluded that epistemological beliefs are important predictors of mathematics

and problem solving skill. Epistemological beliefs have also been linked with reading

comprehension (Schommer, 1990; Schommer, Crouse, & Rhodes, 1992), academic goal

setting (Braten & Stromso, 2004) attitudes toward school (Schommer & Walker, 1997),

and grade-point average (Schommer, Calvert, Gargliette, & Bajaj, 1997). Some studies

(e.g., Levitt, 2001) have indicated that teachers tend to engage in simplistic teaching

practices that do not enhance epistemological belief development in their students and

may reflect naïve epistemological beliefs in the teachers themselves.

One question in determining teachers’ epistemological beliefs may be to address

their educational level. Evidence (e.g., Lehman, Lempert, & Nisbett, 1988) suggests that

graduate-level education advances epistemological beliefs in students to be more

sophisticated and less naïve. Before addressing the purpose of this study, definitions

relevant to this study will be explained.

Definitions

Epistemological beliefs are defined as beliefs about the nature and acquisition of

knowledge (Bruning, Schraw, Norby, & Ronning, 2004). Schommer (1994) pioneered an

epistemological beliefs system of five more or less independent beliefs, which are:

stability of knowledge, structure of knowledge, source of knowledge, control of

knowledge acquisition and the speed of knowledge acquisition. Each dimension ranges

from simplistic, naïve beliefs to more sophisticated and complex beliefs. For instance,

within the dimension of structure of knowledge, a naïve belief would be that knowledge

is best described as isolated facts, while a more sophisticated belief would be that

knowledge can be better explained as integrated and connected theories.

Schraw and Olafson (2008) adapted the study of epistemological beliefs to be

dimensions that can be represented on a scale. One extreme of the scale is labeled

Epistemological Realist (representing more naïve beliefs), describing a belief that there is

an objective body of knowledge that must be acquired. The other extreme of this scale is

labeled Epistemological Relativist (representing more sophisticated beliefs),

encapsulating a belief that would describe curriculum as changing and student-centered.

Schraw and Olafson also incorporated Ontology into the study of epistemological beliefs.

Ontology is the study of beliefs about the nature of reality and can also be represented on

a scale. One end of the scale is labeled Ontological Realist, which describes assumptions

that there is one underlying reality that is the same for everyone. The opposite end of the

scale is labeled Ontological Relativist, which characterizes beliefs relating to people

having their own reality and the existence of multiple realities.

Historical Background

Schommer-Aikins (2002) provided a historical perspective of the evolvement of

the study of epistemological beliefs. The following brief review of this history is taken

from her work. The study of epistemological beliefs began in 1968, when Perry examined

the beliefs of Harvard undergraduates using interviews and questionnaires. Perry

concluded that the subjects in the early years of college tended to believe in simple,

certain knowledge that is handed down by authority. Nearing the end of their college

experience, most students believed in more tentative, complex knowledge that is derived

from their reason and observation. Following Perry, Ryan (1984) linked epistemological

beliefs to comprehension monitoring. Ryan found that those with naïve epistemological

beliefs were more likely to monitor comprehension by reciting facts rather than reporting

context-oriented conceptions. Kitchener and King (1981) introduced the Reflective

Judgment Model, proposing that learners move from beliefs of absolute and concrete

knowledge that is validated by authority to the final stage of the belief that knowledge is

tentative and justified by reason.

Schommer-Aikins (2002) further cited Dweck and Bempechat (1983), who

concluded that children hold beliefs about the ability to learn, and those beliefs influence

their behavior during a learning task. Children who believe that learning ability is fixed at

birth will give up on a problem faster than children who believe that the ability to learn

can be improved. Schoenfeld (1983, 1985) found evidence that seemed to show that

students with poor mathematics problem-solving skills tended to believe that

mathematics knowledge was handed down by an omniscient authority and that

mathematics problem solving should occur quickly.

A Belief System

Schommer (1994) developed the notion of epistemology into a belief system that

included five different domains: (a) certainty of knowledge, (b) structure of knowledge,

(c) source of knowledge, (d) control of knowledge acquisition, and (e) speed of

knowledge acquisition. Certainty of knowledge belief ranges from personal beliefs that

knowledge is static throughout time to the view that knowledge is tentative and changes

over time. The structure of knowledge belief ranges from beliefs that knowledge is

simply facts to the belief that knowledge is better represented as complex theories.

Source of knowledge beliefs are the beliefs that people hold regarding where knowledge

comes from: Whether it comes from those in authority to something that can be

discovered and learned by anyone. The control of knowledge belief relates to the beliefs

individuals hold about the ability to learn, ranging from the belief that ability to learn is

fixed at birth or that the ability to learn changes throughout an individual’s life. The

speed of knowledge acquisition belief refers to the belief in how quickly knowledge can

be acquired. Individuals hold beliefs that range from the perception that knowledge will

only be learned in a small amount of time or it won’t be learned at all to the belief that

most things can be learned by most people if enough time is dedicated. These domains

are proposed to be more or less independent of each other, suggesting that an individual

can hold sophisticated beliefs in one domain and more naïve beliefs in another.
 In contrast to Schommer (1994), Hofer and Pintrich (1997) indicated that some of

Schommer’s (1994) dimensions are outside of the definition of epistemological beliefs.

The authors stated that fixed ability and quick learning do not fall into the construct of

epistemological beliefs because they do not purely concern beliefs about knowledge but

also address learning and learning ability.

This work will assume the definition of epistemological beliefs as beliefs about

the nature and acquisition of knowledge (Bruning et al., 2004) and include the five

domains suggested by Schommer (1994).

Purpose

Because epistemological beliefs are important to student learning and teachers

must be epistemologically sophisticated before they can engage in teaching practices that

encourage the development of epistemological beliefs among students, teachers’

epistemological beliefs should be assessed to determine their level of epistemological

sophistication. The educational programs that may have led to the development of these

beliefs among teachers should be examined to determine if differing educational

programs and levels of education affect epistemological beliefs in teachers.

Overview

Chapter two of this thesis details research on students in teacher education

programs, (who are also called pre-service teachers). Research on practicing teachers was

also presented. Ontology and its relation to education was shown, and Shraw’s (2008)

four-quadrant scale was exhibited. Literature explaining the effect education has on

reasoning and epistemological beliefs was discussed. Chapter three discusses the
methods, participants, instruments and procedure of study. Chapter four describes the

results of the data analysis, chapter five presents the discussion.

 CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Chapter two of this thesis presents evidence of the importance of these beliefs

regarding students. Recent inquiries of epistemological beliefs among pre-service

teachers are detailed, as well as investigations of current teacher epistemological beliefs

and their connection to teaching practices. The effect of graduate education on teachers’

epistemological beliefs will be discussed, and the notion of ontology will be introduced.

Epistemological beliefs have visible importance to student learning.

Epistemological beliefs have been linked with comprehension (e.g., Schommer, 1990;

Schommer, Crouse, & Rhodes, 1992), mathematics understanding (Schoenfeld, 1992,

cited in De Corte, et al., 2002), attitudes toward school (Schommer &Walker (1997),

academic goal setting (Braten & Stromso, 2004) and grade-point average (Schommer et

al. (1997).

Epistemological beliefs have been found to be related to academic major (Jehng,

Johnson, & Anderson, 1993) and levels of education (Schommer, 1998). As students

progress through college and graduate school, epistemological beliefs become more

sophisticated. Similar findings have been made about reasoning abilities, level of

education, and type of education (Lehman et. al, 1988).

Literature Review

Whereas the importance and meaning for examining the epistemological beliefs

of students has been established (e.g., Broten & Stromso, 2004; Schommer et al., 1992;

Schommer, 1990), a more recent exploration of epistemological beliefs has begun in two
areas. First, a number of studies have been conducted using students in a teacher

education program, also called pre-service teachers.

Pre-Service Teachers and Epistemological Beliefs

White’s (2000) line of inquiry explored the beliefs of pre-service teachers in the

context of problematic classroom situations. Specifically, White wanted to find out what

beliefs pre-service teachers held about the certainty of knowledge, how pre-service

teachers view problematic classroom situations, what source of knowledge the pre-

service teachers would use to make their choice of a solution to follow in a problematic

classroom situation, and how pre-service teachers would justify their choice of action in a

problematic classroom situation. White introduced students throughout the semester to

case studies of first-year teachers. The students then discussed and gave individual

written responses to the case studies. These written responses were what White then used

as a framework for interviews that were conducted individually at the end of the

semester. The participants in White’s study were 20 members of the teacher education

program at a mid-western university and were categorized based on their responses

during the interview according to King and Kitchener’s stages of Reflective Judgment,

which is a seven-stage model that judges responses according to expressed certainty of

knowledge and use of evidence in responses (King & Kitchener, 1994; cited in White,

2000). Of these participants, two were judged by White to be in the departing absolutist

category, which is the category that describes the most naïve beliefs. The final stage,

called the reflected relative, is the stage that describes the most sophisticated beliefs.

Three pre-service teachers were judged to be in this category. The majority of

participants were found to be in the second most naïve category. From this study, White

concluded that pre-service teachers have wide differences in epistemological beliefs;

these beliefs do not develop in a stage-like manner and are interconnected in a web-like

fashion.

Recognizing the importance of developing the epistemological beliefs of pre-

service teachers, Gill, Ashton, and Algina (2004) created and performed a study that

provided pre-service teachers with instructional intervention. The purpose of this study

was to determine how pre-service teachers would adopt the philosophy of the National

Council of Teachers of Mathematics. This council encourages teachers to have a general

epistemological belief that knowledge is uncertain and complex, and that mathematics

knowledge is learned in a constructivist manner by actively constructing knowledge

during problem solving. One hundred sixty-one elementary education students

participated in this study. To assess the epistemological beliefs of the pre-service

teachers, the researchers used three measures of epistemological beliefs. The first

measure was the Cognitively Guided Instruction Belief Survey (CGI) that measured the

students’ explicitly held epistemological beliefs about mathematics. Second, participants

were administered a revised version (Quain & Alverman, 1995, cited in Gill et al., 2004)

of Schommer’s (1990) Epistemological Beliefs Questionnaire (EBQ). This measured the

participants’ general epistemological beliefs. Third, to measure the implicit

epistemological beliefs the students held about mathematics, the researchers used

mathematics teaching scenarios that were intended to reveal the underlying

epistemological beliefs these pre-service teachers had about teaching mathematics. The
participants were divided into a control and experimental group; the experimental group

received a treatment of a text that explained how and why a constructivist teacher would

teach a mathematics class and how a procedural teacher would teach the class and

believed reasons a teacher would teach that way. Results of this study provided support

for the use of persuasive text to foster the development of epistemological beliefs.

Differences in experimental and control group were statistically significant for all three of

the epistemological belief measures.

Sinatra and Kardash (2004) examined epistemological beliefs and their relation to

the views pre-service teachers had about teaching as persuasion. Teaching as persuasion

can be defined as a metaphor for teaching in which teachers acknowledge that students

have (a) knowledge or beliefs that conflict with classroom content; (b) alternative points

of views are worth considering; (c) messages can be structured to influence students’

understanding; and (d) learning results from a change in students’ knowledge and beliefs.

However, the term persuasion often has a negative connotation. The purpose of this study

was to determine if pre-service teachers would be open to change and learning about

teaching as persuasion. One hundred eighty-two college education students were

administered two scales from the Epistemological Beliefs Survey (EBS) (Kardash

&Wood, 2002; Wood & Kardash, 2002; cited in Sinatra & Kardash, 2004). The two

scales were the Speed of Knowledge Acquisition and the Knowledge Construction and

Modification scale. The Speed of Knowledge scale measures students’ beliefs about how

quickly and how complicated learning is. The Knowledge Construction and Modification

scale seems to measure beliefs about the certainty of knowledge, the integration of
knowledge from various sources, and the degree to which knowledge is actively

constructed. The study found that epistemological beliefs among pre-service teachers

were significantly and positively correlated with openness to teaching as persuasion.

Further study of the epistemological beliefs of teacher education students was

conducted by Chan and Elliot (2004). This study utilized 385 teacher education students

from a post-secondary institution in Hong Kong. The purpose of this study was to

determine if there were any relationships between explicit epistemological beliefs and

explicit teaching beliefs. Schommer’s EBQ (1990) was administered as well as the

Teaching and Learning Conceptions Questionnaire (TCCQ) (Chan & Elliot, 2004). This

measure was developed by the authors to capture a conception of teaching, either

traditional or constructivist. The Traditional Conception views teaching as a non-

problematic transfer of knowledge from an expert to a novice. The constructivist

conception sees learning as the acquisition of knowledge by the learner through reasoning

and justification, and teaching is the facilitation of the learning process rather than the

transmission of knowledge. The TCCQ asked participants to respond via a Likert-type

scale to statements such as “it is important that a teacher understands the feelings of the

students” and “during the lesson, it is important to keep students confined to the

textbooks and the desks.” The results of the EBQ and the TCCQ were correlated. The

Traditional Conception of teaching was positively and significantly correlated with three

dimensions of the EBQ: Innate/Fixed Ability, Authority/Expert Knowledge and Certainty

of Knowledge. The Constructivist Conception was found also to be correlated with

Authority/Expert Knowledge and Certainty of Knowledge but to a lesser degree than the
Traditional Conception. Learning Effort/Process was negatively related to the

Constructivist Conception.

Teachers and Epistemological Beliefs

Another area of research has addressed the epistemological beliefs of teachers

and how these beliefs are related to various forms of teacher behavior. Levitt (2001)

studied the beliefs teachers had about teaching and learning science among elementary

school science teachers. The purpose of the study was to ascertain how consistent

teachers’ beliefs were with current reform standards in science education. This reform

attempted to transform teaching practices from the dominant practice of positivism,

which can be generally described as the learning of answers, memorizing facts, and

reading text, to the practice of constructivism, which can be described as investigating

questions, thinking critically, and making arguments to explore science. Levitt explained

that the success of any reform depended on teachers incorporating the new philosophies

of the reform into their own teaching practices and philosophies. Teachers from two

different school districts (10 from each district) were observed during the teaching of a

science lesson. The teachers were then interviewed based on what the researcher had seen

during the observations. Levitt found that eight of the teachers fell in a transitional range

that was somewhere between a positivist teacher and a constructivist teacher. There were

five teachers whose beliefs were traditional, and three whose beliefs were

transformational. As a whole, Levitt believed that the teachers who were sampled

appeared to be in an incomplete stage to full reform (Levitt 2001).

 In another study on the epistemological beliefs of teachers, Olafson and Schraw

(2006) determined the epistemological beliefs of elementary teachers and then attempted

to look for a correlation between their epistemological beliefs and their actual teaching

practices. The researchers used vignettes that described what they called epistemological

world views. These were called realist, contextualist, and relativist world views. Realists

were described as believers of a fixed, core body of knowledge that is learned by

transmission from an expert to a novice. Students in a realist teacher’s classroom would

experience an active teacher and would be expected to learn passively. Contextualists

posit that students must construct their own knowledge and that the teacher serves as a

facilitator for this collaborative, shared construction of knowledge. Relativists also

indicate that students need to construct their own knowledge and teachers should build an

environment where students construct their knowledge and learn to think independently.

Olafson and Schraw divided their research into two phases. Phase I of the study

utilized 24 elementary school teachers who were enrolled in a graduate course in

curriculum. These teachers were administered the Epistemic Belief Inventory (Schraw,

Bendixen, & Dunkle, 2002). The researchers focused on simple knowledge (how simple

or complex knowledge is), certain knowledge (to what degree is knowledge tentative),

and omniscient authority (to what degree) subscales of the instrument. The participants

then completed the Need for Cognition Scale (Cacioppo, Petty, Feinstein, & Jarvis, 1996,

cited in Olafson & Schraw, 2006), measuring the participants’ preference for complex

thinking. The elementary teachers were also administered a Motivation for Teaching

Scale (Schraw & Olafson, 2002, cited in Olafson & Schraw, 2006), that measured
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for teaching. The participants were then read the

epistemological world views vignettes and were categorized into a world view based on

an interview conducted after the reading of the vignettes. Teachers were then interviewed

regarding their teaching practices, specifically their selection of curriculum. The authors

reported that 95% of participants identified with the contextualist position, 85% disagreed

with the realist position, and 30% gave support to the relativist world view. All of the

teachers used the curriculum the school district provided; however, there was large

variability in how much the teachers relied on the district-provided curriculum. Teachers

who relied heavily on the district curriculum had less student-centered classrooms than

those who often strayed from the curriculum.

In Phase II of the study, participants completed the same three scales as Phase I

participants. Phase II teachers were then asked to create a storyboard of a recent

memorable teaching experience. Using PowerPoint, teachers made the storyboard that

included digital photographs of the classroom during teaching, descriptions of curricular

objectives, and instructional strategies. The Phase II participants also submitted a

reflection paper of their beliefs and the relationship of their beliefs to their practices.

Phase II results were similar to participants in Phase I; that is, Phase II participants had

similar epistemological beliefs to participants in Phase I. The results of this study

indicated that epistemological beliefs and worldviews are correlated. The contextualist

and relativist worldviews were correlated with more sophisticated epistemological

beliefs. Also, more sophisticated epistemological beliefs were correlated with more

intrinsic motivation. The authors also noted that, according to the Phase II teachers’
storyboards and reflection papers, epistemological beliefs and worldviews are not closely

aligned with teaching practices. Of the nine storyboards and reflection papers that were

submitted, 59% were contextualist, 36% were realist, and 5% were relativist. This is in

contrast to the Phase II teachers’ reported world view beliefs, where 89% gave support to

contextualist position, 55% gave support for the relativist, and no teacher gave support to

the realist position.

Ontology and Epistemological Beliefs

Most recently, the study of beliefs and their effects on learning has expanded to

include the notion of ontology, the study of the beliefs about the nature of reality. Slotta

and Chi (2006) explored the conceptualizations that students hold about physics concepts.

The authors hypothesized that students have difficulty learning about topics such as heat,

light and electricity because students consider these concepts to be material substances

rather than emergent processes. This incorrect classification results from an incorrect

ontological attribution, or an incorrect assumption about the nature and characteristics of

emergent processes. Participants (n=24) were undergraduate students and were equally

divided into an experimental group and a control group, the experimental group receiving

training from the emergent process ontology training module while the control group

received training on the same computer and on the same topic as the experimental group

but without the focus on emergent processes. Both groups completed a pre-test and a

post-test before and after their training session.

The participants were then given an electricity pre-test, followed by an electricity

text to read and then an electricity post-test. These tests contained prompts for the
participants to expound on their answers. The results of this study indicated that the

students who received emergent processes training reduced their errors on the electricity

post-test by 20% more than the control group. Also, experimental participants’ responses

to the prompts to elaborate on their answers to the post-test were judged to be more

conceptually correct than control group participants.

Continuing the investigation of ontological beliefs, Schraw and Olafson (2008)

proposed a simple measurement instrument that attempts to identify ontological and

epistemological beliefs. Schraw and Olafson contended that epistemological and

ontological beliefs can be measured on a four-quadrant scale. After reading a set of

instructions on how to rate their epistemological and ontological beliefs on the four-

quadrant scale, participants (24 graduate education students) read descriptions of

ontological and epistemological positions. The participants made their mark on the four-

quadrant scale where they believed their epistemological and ontological views were best

represented. The participants were then asked to give written justification for their mark.

Results of this study showed that approximately 45% of the participants rated themselves

as epistemological realists to some degree. Contrastingly, approximately 92% rated

themselves as ontological relativists. The authors also noted that the content of

participants’ written justifications of their marks on the four-quadrant scale showed

alignment.
Graduate Education

One area that may be related to epistemological and ontological beliefs is

education. Advancing education requires individuals to think in more complex ways and

deal with areas of knowledge that are less certain. Different graduate programs have been

shown to elicit different reasoning skills and methods of thinking (Lehman, Lempert, &

Nisbett, 1988). These authors investigated the reasoning abilities of 213 first-year law

students, 127 medical students, 25 psychology students, and 31 chemistry students in the

areas of statistics, methodology, conditional reasoning, and verbal reasoning. Third year

students in the same disciplines were given the same instrument to measure their

reasoning in the same areas as the first year students, with 50 law students, 48 medical

students, 33 psychology students and 26 chemistry students. Lehman and colleagues also

used a longitudinal design to explore the reasoning abilities of students. Students were

utilized both in their first year and third year, with 77 law students, 87 medical students,

24 psychology students, and 18 chemistry students. The results of the study showed that

in the first year of the students’ programs, their reasoning abilities differed only

marginally. Third-year students had considerable differences in all conditions except

verbal reasoning. Medical students and psychology students improved greatly in

statistical and methodological reasoning, psychology students seeing the most

improvement. The law and chemistry students improved marginally. Conditional

reasoning saw considerable improvement for third year law, medicine, and psychology

students. Chemistry students saw little gain.

 Jehng et al. (1993) provided additional evidence that academic major and year in

school are related to epistemological beliefs. The authors modified Schommer’s (1990)

Epistemological beliefs questionnaire to be used in Chinese and substituted a dimension

of “Orderly Processes” for Schommer’s (1990) dimension of Simple Knowledge. This

modified questionnaire was administered to a large number of graduate and

undergraduate students at a university in China. An analysis of 398 questionnaires

showed that academic field of study and level of education were related to

epistemological beliefs. Academic field was found to show differing epistemological

beliefs whereas year in school was found to be related to increasingly sophisticated

epistemological beliefs (Jehng et al. 1993).

To further explore the effect different variables have on epistemological beliefs,

Schommer sought to determine what relationship age has with the development of

epistemological beliefs (Schommer, 1998). Schommer surveyed the epistemological

beliefs of 418 adults from 170 occupations, including farmers, firefighters, executives,

waitresses, and lawyers. Schommer’s sample of 418 adults were composed of

approximately one-third of the adults having a high school education only, one-third

possessing a bachelor’s degree only, and one-third having graduate education. Results

showed that age and level of education affect epistemological beliefs in their own ways.

Education was related to beliefs about structure and the stability of knowledge whereas

age was related to beliefs about the ability to learn (Schommer, 1998).
 Summary

Researchers in the field of epistemological beliefs began studying the beliefs of

undergraduates. Research has spread to examine the beliefs of secondary students,

graduate students, teacher education students, and various practicing professionals, most

prominently, practicing teachers. Personal beliefs about knowledge and learning have

shown their importance in how, and how much, individuals learn. Research using

practicing teachers as participants has shown that epistemological beliefs are related to

teaching practices. Epistemological beliefs have been shown to reach greater

development with continued education. However, different education programs show

differing levels of epistemological sophistication, as well as age showing a unique

relationship with epistemological beliefs.

Because the inquiry about epistemological beliefs among teachers is a recent

endeavor, more studies and data need to be collected to further assess the beliefs of

practicing teachers. Ontological beliefs have only recently been incorporated with

epistemological beliefs and so further study is needed to determine their relevance to

teacher beliefs. The four quadrant scale method for assessing epistemological and

ontological beliefs is a recently constructed measure that has not established any forms of

reliability. Also, effects of graduate education have not been specifically assessed

regarding special education teachers and the effects of specific graduate programs within

the field of special education.

 It stands to reason that in order for teachers to foster epistemological beliefs

within their students, the teachers must hold sophisticated epistemological beliefs

themselves and value their importance.

This literature review suggests that both academic major and level of education

are related to epistemological beliefs. The questions for this study will be:

1. Will there be differences in educators based on their level of education?

2. Will a relationship between ontological beliefs and epistemological beliefs be

found?

3. Will there be replication of earlier results (Schraw & Olafson, 2008) regarding

the four quadrant scale method of measuring ontological and epistemological beliefs?
 CHAPTER 3

METHOD

Participants

Participants in this study consisted of students that were either in a graduate

teacher education program at Wichita State University or teachers that were contacted via

email. There were 233 teachers who were emailed the consent form and EBI. After two

follow-up emails, 21 teachers responded, giving a response rate of 9%. There were 52

students in graduate courses in the college of education who also participated in this

study. There were 83 total participants in the study (M= 16, F= 67). Gender differences in

this study reflect the general male to female ratio in elementary education (“Education

Reporter”, 2007) Participants’ ethnicities was collected, 73 reported themselves as White

or Caucasian, 2 as African American, 3 as Native American, 2 as Asian, 2 listed “other”

and 1 did not provide ethnic information. Age information was collected on 70 of the

participants. Ages ranged from 23-62 (m=38). The number of participants whose

educational level was less than a Master’s degree was 59. The number of participants

who had Master’s degrees or higher education was 22. Teaching position was provided

by 79 participants. The number of special education teachers was 33, the number of

gifted teachers was 11, and the number of general education teachers was 35. The type of

licensure held by the teachers was provided by 81 participants. The number of teachers

with provisional licenses was 24, the number of teachers with conditional licenses was 3,

and the number of teachers with full licensure was 54.

Instruments

The Four-Quadrant Scale. The four-quadrant scale (Schraw & Olafson, 2008)

consists of a four quadrant scale, labeled epistemological realist to epistemological

relativist on the x axis and ontological realist to ontological relativist on the y axis. This

study utilized a modified version of this scale (see Appendix C). Numbered grid lines

were added to give a frame of reference for participants and make scoring of the

instrument quicker for the researcher. The grid was numbered from 0 to 10 on both the x

and y axis, 0 beginning on the realist end of the scales and 10 labeling the most

relativistic end of the scales. Participants were given descriptions of ontological and

epistemological realist and relativist positions (see Appendix C). Participants were then

asked to make their mark on the four-quadrant scale. The instrument measures

epistemological beliefs by the distance the participants’ mark is from the origin of the

four quadrant scale. The instrument was scored by recording the coordinates of the

participant’s mark. There is no known reliability or validity for this measure.

Epistemic Belief Inventory. The participants were administered the Epistemic

Belief Inventory (Schraw, Bendixen, & Dunkle, 2002) (see Appendix D). This 28 item 5

point Likert scale questionnaire has yielded Cronbach Alphas for items ranging from .58

to .68. Teachers will respond to the 28 items with a 1 corresponding to ‘strongly

disagree’ to a 5 corresponding to ‘strongly agree’ (See appendix D). Items are totaled,

and a mean score for each of the five factors is computed, resulting in a minimum score

of 1 to a maximum score of 5. Items 2, 6, 19, 24, and 28 are reversed scored (G. Schraw,
personal communication, January 15, 2009). Higher scores are meant to represent more

naïve epistemological beliefs. The Epistemological Beliefs Inventory (EBI) uses the five

factors proposed by Schommer (1990). There are seven items measuring simple

knowledge, five items measuring certain knowledge, five items measuring omniscient

authority, six items measuring innate ability, and five items measuring quick learning (G.

Schraw, personal communication, January 15, 2009). Unlike Schommer (1990) the EBI

indicates evidence of loadings of the omniscient authority dimension. This may be due to

unique items that were developed by Schraw, Dunkle, and Bendixen (1995). Schraw,

Dunkle, and Bendixen suggested that this is evidence of the existence of the omniscient

authority dimension. The EBI has shown predictive validity. College students who

showed stronger beliefs in certain knowledge and omniscient authority predicted

performance on an ill-structured problem and stronger beliefs in quick learning predicted

performance on a well-structured problem (Duell & Schommer-Aikins, 2001).

Demographic questionnaire. Participants were given a brief demographic

questionnaire that will assess: sex, age, teaching experience, current teaching assignment,

and academic background (See Appendix E).

Procedure

Each school district’s superintendent was contacted to obtain permission to email

participants. The school districts of Valley Center and Maize granted permission for the

researcher to email teachers. The Director of the Sedgwick County Area Educational

Services Interlocal cooperative (SCAESIC) was contacted and granted permission for the

researcher to email all special education teachers employed by the SCAESIC. Teachers’
email addresses were obtained via each school district’s website and the website of the

SCAESIC. Teachers were then given an email from the researcher. In the body of this

email (Appendix A) were brief directions for completing the study, a consent form and an

internet link to an online version of the EBI and demographics questionnaire. After

reading the consent form, participants signified their consent to participate in this study

by opening an internet link to the online versions of the EBI and demographics

questionnaire. GoogleDocs™ was used to create and administer the online versions of the

EBI and demographics questionnaire. A total of 233 teachers were emailed the study.

Two follow-up emails were given to participants who had not yet participated in the

study. Because so few of the teachers responded, the sample size was supplemented by

requesting graduate students to participate in the study. To answer the research questions

regarding the four-quadrant method, students in graduate teacher education programs at

Wichita State University were surveyed. Three instructors were asked permission for the

researcher to come to their classes before instruction began. All instructors granted

permission to the researcher. The researcher then prepared packets for participants

containing paper copies of the consent form (Appendix B), EBI, four quadrant scale, and

demographics questionnaire (Appendix E). The order of the copies of EBI and four-

quadrant scale was alternated, so half of the class received the EBI first in their packet

while the other half received the four-quadrant scale first. The order in which the EBI and

the four quadrant method was given in the packet was recorded in 33 of the participants.

The researcher gave a brief explanation of the study and provided the packet to students
who volunteered their participation. Further explanation of the four-quadrant scale was

given to participants who had questions about how to complete the four-quadrant method.
 CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

The results of the data analysis are presented in this chapter. The research

addressed the following research questions: (a) Will there be differences in educators

based on their level of education? (b) Will a relationship between ontological beliefs and

epistemological beliefs be found? (c) Will there be replication of earlier results (Schraw

& Olafson, 2008) regarding the four quadrant scale method of measuring ontological and

epistemological beliefs?

Descriptive Analysis

Before presenting the statistical analysis, Table 1 presents means and standard

deviations for the 5 EBI dimensions, results of 4-quadrant scale, based on the

independent variables of Gender, Age, Education level, Instrument Order, Teaching

Licensure, and Program of Study. Participants were divided by age into four age groups:

22-28, 29-37, 38-45, and 46 and older (Levinson, Darrow, Klein, Levinson & McKeel,

1976; Roberts & Newton, 1987). Levinson, et al. indicate that these age groupings typify

specific developmental tasks that need to be accomplished during that time frame and

therefore mark natural age divisions in adulthood. Participants were grouped by

Education level by degree and credit hours earned. Bachelor’s degree and credit hours

earned up to a Master’s degree was one group, Master’s degree and credits and degrees

earned post-Master’s was the second group. Participants were grouped in the Instrument

Order variable according to which instrument in the study the participants completed

first. The Program of Study variable categorized participants by their chosen educational
field, if they are in a program to earn a special education degree or general education

degree.
 Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, Numbers for Gender, Age Groups, Educational Level,
Instrument Order, Licensure, and Program of Study

Variable Gender Age Groups Educational Level

Male Female Total 22-28 29-37 38-45 46+ Total BS+ MEd+ Total
(n=16) (n=67) (N=83 (n=22) (n=15) (n=11) (n=22) (N=70) (n=59) (n=22) (N=81)
M (sd) M (sd) M (sd) M (sd) M (sd) M (sd) M (sd) M (sd) M (sd) M (sd) M (sd)
EBI
Dimension 2.8(.3) 2.9(.4) 2.9(.4) 2.9(.5) 3.0(.4) 2.8(.4) 2.9(.3) 2.9(.4) 2.9(.4) 2.9(.3) 2.9(.4)
Innate Ability
Simple Know. 3.0(.4) 2.9(.5) 2.9(.5) 3.1(.6) 2.9(.6) 2.9(.3) 2.9(.5) 3.0(.5) 3.0(.5) 2.8(.4) 3.0(.5)
Certain 2.5(.6) 2.7(.6) 2.6(.6) 2.8(.7) 2.5(.6) 2.7(.5) 2.4(.6) 2.6(.6) 2.7(.6) 2.5(.6) 2.6(.6)
Know.
Omniscient 2.9(.4) 3.3(.6) 3.2(.6) 3.5(.6) 3.0(.4) 3.1(.5) 3.0(.6) 3.2(.6) 3.3(.5) 2.9(.6) 3.2(.6)
Auth
Quick 1.7(.4) 1.8(.5) 1.8(.4) 1.8(.5) 1.6(.4) 1.7(.3) 1.8(.4) 1.7(.4) 1.7(.5) 1.8(.4) 1.8(.4)
Learning
Quandrant
Scale
Epistemology 6.3(2.6) 7.9(2.8) 7.6(2.8) 7.6(2.3) 8.4(2.1) 7.6(2.8) 8.5(3.4) 8.1(2.7) 7.0(2.5) 9.4(2.8) 7.6(2.8)

Ontology 6.8(2.6) 8.5(2.4) 8.2(2.5) 8.4(2.2) 8.1(2.6) 8.0(2.6) 9.0(2.7) 8.5(2.5) 7.7(2.3) 9.6(2.6) 8.2(2.5)

Order Licensure Program of Study

Four- EBI Total Full Prov Cond. Total Sp. Ed. Gen. Total
quadrant first (N=33) (n=54) (n=24) (n=3) (N=81) (n=36) Ed. (N=62)
first(n=18) (n=15) M (sd) M (sd) M (sd) M (sd) M (sd) M (sd) (n=26) M (sd)
M (sd) M (sd) M (sd)
EBI
Dimension
Innate Ability 2.7(.5) 3.0(.4) 2.9(.4) 2.9(.3) 2.8(.5) 3.1(.6) 2.9(.4) 2.9(.4) 2.9(.4) 2.9(.4)

Simple Know. 3.1(.6) 3.0(.3) 3.0(.5) 3.0(.5) 2.8(.5) 3.0(.7) 2.9(.5) 2.9(.4) 3.1(.5) 3.0(.5)
Certain 2.6(.7) 2.6(.6) 2.6(.6) 2.6(.6) 2.7(.6) 2.2(.2) 2.6(.6) 2.6(.6) 2.7(.7) 2.7(.6)
Know.
Omniscient 3.2(.5) 3.4(.6) 3.3(.6) 3.1(.6) 3.4(.5) 3.5(.8) 3.2(.6) 3.2(.6) 3.4(.5) 3.3(.5)
Auth
Quick 1.6(.3) 1.9(.4) 1.7(.4) 1.8(.4) 1.7(.4) 1.4(0) 1.8(.4) 1.8(.5) 1.7(.4) 1.8(.5)
Learning
Quandrant
Scale
Epistemology 7.6(2.3) 6.1(2.1) 6.9(2.3) 8.1(2.9) 7.1(2.3) 6.3(1.1) 7.7(2.7) 6.1(2.3) 7.0(2.2) 6.4(2.3)

Ontology 8.0(2.1) 7.2(2.1) 7.6(2.1) 8.6(2.5) 6.7(2.1) 5.7(1.1) 8.3(2.4) 6.9(2.2) 7.7(2.1) 7.2(2.2)
Statistical Analyses

To answer the first research question (will there be differences in the 5 dimensions of the

EBI and 2 measures of the four-quadrant scale between educators based on their level of

education), MANOVA was used. Table 2 presents the F values of the MANOVA.

Table 2.

MANOVA for Education Level

Source df F Sig.
Innate Ability 1 0.01 0.00 0.90
Simple Knowledge 1 3.90* 0.05 0.05
Certain Knowledge 1 1.59 0.02 0.21
Omniscient Authority 1 7.82** 0.09 0.01
Quick Learning 1 0.29 0.00 0.59
Epistemology 1 14.53** 0.16 0.00
Ontology 1 10.16** 0.11 0.00

Significant F values were found for the Simple Knowledge and Omniscient Authority

dimensions of the EBI, and for both measures of the four-quadrant scale, indicating that

participants with a master’s degree or higher education were less likely to believe in

Omniscient Authority and more likely to believe in complex knowledge.

Because the issue of teaching assignment was a relevant variable (gifted and

special education teachers would be more likely to have masters’ degrees), a MANOVA

was also conducted to determine if there was significant differences between EBI

dimensions and teaching position. There were no significant differences found.

To answer the second research question regarding a relationship between

ontological beliefs and epistemological beliefs, correlational analysis was conducted

Table 3

Zero-Order Correlations of EBI dimensions and four quadrant scale dimensions

Innate Simple Certain Omniscient Quick

Ability Knowledge Knowledge Authority Learning Epistemology Ontology

Innate 1.00
Ability
Simple .19 1.00
Knowledge
Certain .25* -.01 1.00
Knowledge
Omniscient .22* .16 .47** 1.00
Authority
Quick .29* .35** -.01 .04 1.00
Learning
.06 -.06 -.04 -.04 -.03 1.00
Epistemology
Ontology -.03 -.12 .08 -.04 -.12 .76** 1.00

p<.05

**p<.01

among the five dimensions of the EBI and both of the measures of the four-quadrant

scale. Zero-order correlations of the 5 dimensions of the EBI and the two measures of the

four-quadrant scale are presented in Table 3. Significant relationships were found among

Innate Ability and Certain Knowledge, Omniscient Authority, and Quick Learning.

Certain Knowledge was related to Omniscient authority, and Quick Learning and Simple

Knowledge had a significant relationship.

A significant relationship between the Ontology and Epistemology measures of

the four quadrant scale was found, r =.76, p <.01.

To determine if replication of earlier results of the four-quadrant scale (Schraw &

Olafson, 2008) were found (research question 3), percentages of participants’ self ratings

on the four quadrant scale were calculated. Of the participants, 24% (n=58) classified
themselves as epistemological realists, 76% as epistemological relativists, 12% as

ontological realists, and 88 % as ontological relativists. This compares to Shraw &

Olafson’s results of 45% of participants rating themselves as epistemological realists and

92% rating themselves as ontological relativists.

Ancillary Analysis

Differences in EBI and Four-quadrant scale scores were also analyzed using

differences in teacher’s graduate program of study, gender, licensure type, and age. Table

4 presents the F values of the Graduate program of study MANOVA. Table 5 presents the

F values from MANOVA using Gender as the independent variable. Table 6 shows the F

values of MANOVA with Licensure Type as the independent variable. Table 7 presents

the F values of MANOVA based on age categories. Table 8 presents the F values of

MANOVA of Instrument order.

Table 4.

MANOVA for Program of Study

Source df F Sig.
Innate Ability 1 0.01 0.00 0.94
Simple Knowledge 1 4.34* 0.07 0.04
Certain Knowledge 1 0.74 0.01 0.39
Omniscient Authority 1 2.72 0.04 0.10
Quick Learning 1 1.82 0.03 0.18
Epistemology 1 2.57 0.04 0.11
Ontology 1 2.38 0.04 0.13
 Graduate program of study was found to have significant difference in the EBI

dimension of Simple Knowledge, indicating that students in masters’ degree program for

general education were more likely to believe in simple knowledge than students in the

special education program. Although not significant, there is a trend suggesting that

students in general education are also more likely to have stronger beliefs in omniscient

authority.

Table 5.

MANOVA for Gender

Source Df F Sig.
Innate Ability 1 2.27 0.03 0.14
Simple Knowledge 1 0.32 0.00 0.57
Certain Knowledge 1 1.13 0.01 0.29
Omniscient Authority 1 8.68** 0.10 0.00
Quick Learning 1 0.34 0.00 0.56
Epistemology 1 4.10* 0.05 0.05
Ontology 1 6.70** 0.08 0.01

Gender differences were found to be significant for both measures of the four

quadrant scale and the Omniscient Authority dimension of the EBI. Females are more

likely to believe in omniscient authority; however, females are also more likely to have

more relativistic beliefs in ontology and epistemology as measured by the four quadrant

scale.
Table 6.

MANOVA for Licensure Type

Source df F Sig.
Innate Ability 2 0.85 0.02 0.43
Simple Knowledge 2 0.89 0.02 0.42
Certain Knowledge 2 0.79 0.02 0.46
Omniscient Authority 2 1.37 0.03 0.26
Quick Learning 2 1.46 0.04 0.24
Epistemology 2 1.49 0.04 0.23
Ontology 2 3.12* 0.07 0.05

The only significant difference found for licensure type was with the ontology

measure of the four-quadrant scale. Participants who had full licensure were more likely

to have relativistic views of ontology.

Table 7.

MANOVA for Age Category

df F Sig.

Innate Ability 3 0.33 0.01 0.80

Simple
Knowledge 3 0.83 0.04 0.48
Certain
Knowledge 3 1.74 0.07 0.17
Omniscient
Authority 3 3.44* 0.14 0.02
Quick
Learning 3 0.49 0.02 0.69
Epistemology 3 0.58 0.03 0.63

Ontology 3 0.58 0.03 0.63

 Significant differences were found between mean scores of the EBI dimension of

omniscient authority. The youngest age group was less likely to endorse beliefs in

omniscient authority.

Table 8.

MANOVA for Instrument order

df F Sig.
Innate Ability 1 2.97 0.09 0.09
Simple Knowledge 1 0.57 0.02 0.45
Certain Knowledge 1 0.04 0.00 0.85
Omniscient Authority 1 1.67 0.05 0.21
Quick Learning 1 4.93* 0.14 0.03
Epistemology 1 3.52 0.10 0.07
Ontology 1 1.30 0.04 0.26

Significant differences were found in the EBI dimension of quick learning. Participants

who completed the four-quadrant method first were more likely to have lower EBI scores

in the quick learning dimension.

Concurrent Validity of Four-Quadrant Scale

Correlational analysis was also employed to investigate if replication of earlier

results (Schraw & Olafson, 2008) were found and to investigate the concurrent validity of

the Four-quadrant scale by determining the correlation between the EBI dimensions and

the Four-quadrant scale. See Table 3.

 CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to examine teacher’s epistemological beliefs and

the factors that may have contributed to the development of those beliefs. The first

research question (Will there be differences in educators based on their level of

education?) indicated that there were indeed differences among educators. In the EBI

dimensions of Simple Knowledge and Omniscient Authority, teachers with more

education were more likely to have more sophisticated epistemological beliefs.

The second research question (Will a relationship between ontological beliefs

and epistemological beliefs be found?) was investigated. Schraw & Olafson (2008)

reported a correlation of r= .45 between the epistemological and ontological measures of

the four-quadrant scale. As reported in this study, a correlation of r=.76 was found

between the two measures of the scale (see table 3). This evidence could support the

existence of a relationship between epistemological and ontological beliefs but probably

more accurately describes a relationship between the measures of the four-quadrant scale.

This relationship cannot be generalized due to the correlations that were found between

the EBI and the four-quadrant scale. As reported in table 3, the epistemology measure of

the four-quadrant scale had negative correlations with Simple Knowledge, Certain

Knowledge, Omniscient Authority, and Quick Learning. Negative correlations would

support a positive relationship between the EBI and the four-quadrant scale because a

low EBI score supports sophisticated epistemological beliefs and a high four quadrant

scale score is intended to represent sophisticated epistemological and ontological beliefs.

The epistemology measure of the four-quadrant scale was found to have a positive

correlation with the Innate Ability dimension of the EBI. The ontological scale of the

four-quadrant method was found to have slight, negative correlations between the Innate

Ability, Simple Knowledge, Omniscient Authority, and Quick Learning dimensions of

the EBI. The ontological measure had a positive correlation with Certain Knowledge.

These findings indicated a weak relationship between the four-quadrant method and the

EBI and did not support a relationship between ontological and epistemological beliefs.

The third research question asked if earlier results (Schraw & Olafson, 2008)

would be found regarding the four quadrant scale method of measuring ontological and

epistemological beliefs. Similar results were found in this study. Schraw & Olafson’s

(2008) reported that 45% of participants (n= 24) rated themselves as epistemological

realists, 55% as epistemological relativists, 8% as ontological relativists, and 92% rated

themselves as ontological relativists. Similarly in this study, 24% of participants (n=58)

classified themselves as epistemological realists, 76% as epistemological relativists, 12%

as ontological realists, and 88 % as ontological relativists. Schraw & Olafson (2008)

reported a correlation of r=.45. A significant relationship between the Ontology and

Epistemology measures of the four quadrant scale was replicated, r =.76.

Based on results of earlier research, ancillary analyses were conducted on other

independent variables. It was expected for Gender, Age, and Level of Education to have

effects on epistemological beliefs. Schommer (1998) found Age to affect beliefs about

the ability to learn and Level of Education to affect beliefs about the stability and

structure of knowledge. In this study, Level of Education had an effect on the Simple
Knowledge and Omniscient Authority dimensions of the EBI. This evidence supports

Schommer’s previous finding that Level of Education affects epistemological beliefs. In

this study, Age was found to have an affect on the Omniscient Authority dimension of the

EBI. While this study did not find evidence to support that Age affected beliefs about the

ability to learn, it did show that Age affected epistemological beliefs in different ways

than Level of Education. Age only affected the Omniscient Authority dimension the EBI,

while Level of Education had an affect on both the Omniscient Authority and the Simple

Knowledge dimensions.

Gender differences were expected to be found based on previous findings.

Schommer, (1990) found females to be more likely to believe in gradual learning rather

than quick learning. Braten & Stromso, (2004) found female teachers to be more likely to

use mastery goals rather than performance goals. This study did not replicate previous

findings but did find significant differences in beliefs in omniscient authority, with

women more likely to endorse beliefs in omniscient authority.

Educational Program was also found to have a significant affect on one of the

dimensions of the EBI. Simple Knowledge was found to be more sophisticated in

participants whose chosen field of study would gain them a degree in special education,

including gifted education. Educational program was known to affect epistemological

beliefs (e.g. Jehng, et. al, (1993), and reasoning skills (Lehman, Lempert & Nisbett,

1988) but it was a somewhat surprising finding in this study due to the perceived

similarity between the educational programs that were surveyed.

 Licensure type was found to have an effect on scores on the Ontology measure of

the four quadrant scale, Teachers with full licensure were more likely to have higher

scores on the ontological measure. Due to the lack of concurrent validity between the

four quadrant scale and the EBI, conclusions cannot be drawn by this finding until

concurrent validity is established.

Limitations

This study was limited in various ways. Low response rate from the online survey

led this study to have a small sample size. Trends in differences in mean EBI and four-

quadrant scale scores could possibly be reported as statistically significant if a larger

sample size would have been obtained. The sample also did not have equal numbers of

participants based on gender, making conclusions about gender differences found in this

study very tentative. Modifications made to the four-quadrant scale limit the conclusions

that can be drawn about the reliability and validity of the instrument. Further limiting the

conclusions that can be drawn about the four-quadrant scale is the small sample of

participants who completed the measure. This researcher discovered no practical way for

the four-quadrant scale to be administered electronically, and so the measure was not sent

out to online participants. The four-quadrant scale was also confusing to some

participants. Some participants required further explanation about the measure before

they were able to complete it.

Implications for future research

Epistemological beliefs have again been shown to be advanced with advancing

education. This is evidence of the importance of advanced education for educators.

Educators with advanced education and in general, more sophisticated epistemological

beliefs should naturally have teaching practices that support and promote sophisticated

epistemological beliefs. Teachers with more sophisticated epistemological beliefs should

more readily support constructivist activities and discussions that promote beliefs in the

complexity and tentativeness of knowledge and the possibility for anyone to obtain it.

However, Olafson and Schraw (2006) did not find epistemological beliefs to be closely

aligned with actual teaching practices when teachers self reported classroom activities,

teaching strategies, and instructional objectives. Future research should further examine

the relationship between teaching practices and epistemological beliefs.

This study found that there were differences in educators based on the type of

graduate education program they were seeking degrees in. Because participants in this

study were all involved in classes that were about teaching, this study suggests that even

small differences in the type of education or subject matter can affect epistemological

beliefs. Future research should address factors within different graduate education

programs that may affect epistemological beliefs.

Women in this study were found to endorse beliefs in omniscient authority more

so than men. This could support the idea that women are socialized in Western culture to

obey rules and follow authority more so than men. Due to the small sample of men in this

study and the lack of this finding reported by earlier researchers, future research should

examine gender differences with a more equal sample size.

The Four-quadrant method, as modified by this researcher, was found to be

confusing to some participants and did not show strong concurrent validity with the EBI.
Conclusions about the Four-quadrant method cannot be made due to the modifications

made by this researcher. It may be the case that future research of the Four-quadrant

method may require more explanation of the measure in order for participants to better

understand the instrument. This may lead to better concurrent validity.

Participants who completed the Four-quadrant method prior to the EBI were less

likely to score high on the Quick Learning dimension of the EBI. This may show that

reading the descriptions of epistemological and ontological realists and relativists found

in the Four-quadrant method influenced participants’ answers on the EBI. Participants

may have detected from the Four-quadrant method descriptions that relativists teachers

are more effective and desirable teachers and so their true quick learning beliefs were not

reported. Future research should keep in mind this effect of the four-quadrant method or

any other descriptions or definitions given before the administration of the EBI.
REFERENCES
 List of References

Braten, I. & Stromso, H. I. (2004). Epistemological beliefs and implicit theories of

intelligence as predictors of achievement goals. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 29, 371-388.

Bruning, R., Schraw, G., Norby, M. & Ronning, R. (2004). Cognitive psychology and
instruction. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Chan, K. & Elliot, R. G. (2004). Relational analysis of personal epistemology a
conceptions about teaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20,
817-831.
De Corte, E., Op ‘T Eynde, P., & Verchaffel, L. (2002). “Knowing what to believe”: the
relevance of students’ mathematical beliefs for mathematics education. In B. K.
Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs
about knowledge and knowing (pp. 297- 320). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Duell, O.K. & Schommer-Aikins, M. (2001). Measures of People’s Beliefs About
Knowledge and Learning. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 419-449.
Gill, M. G., Ashton, P.T., & Algina, J. (2004). Changing preservice teachers’
epistemological beliefs about teaching and learning in mathematics: An
intervention study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 164-185.
Hofer, B. K. (2001). Personal epistemology research: implications for learning and
teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology Review, 13(4), 353-383.
Hofer, B.K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories:
Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review
of Educational Research, 67(1), 88-140.
Jehng, J. J., Johnson, S. D., & Anderson, R. C. (1993). Schooling and
students’epistemological beliefs about learning. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 18(1), 23-35.
Lehman, D. R., Lempert, R. O. & Nisbett, R. E. (1988). The effects of graduate training
on reasoning. American Psychologist, 43, 431-442.
Levitt, K. E. (2001). An analysis of elementary teachers’ beliefs regarding the teaching
and learning of science. Science Education, 86, 1-22.
Levinson, D.J., Darrow, C.M., Klein, E.B., Levinson, M. H. & McKee, B. (1976).
Periods in the adult development of men; Ages 18-45. The Counseling Psychologist, 6,
21-25.
Male elementary teachers harder to find. (2007, April). Education Reporter, 255.
Olafson, L. & Schraw, G. (2006). Teachers’ beliefs and practices within and across
domains. International Journal of Educational Research, 45, 71-84.
Roberts, P. , & Newton, P.M. (1987) Levinsonian studies of women’s adult development.
Psychology and Aging, 2, 154-163.
Schommer-Aikins, M. (2002). An evolving theoretical framework for an epistemological
belief system. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The
psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 103-118). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Schommer, M. (1998). The influence of age and education on epistemological beliefs.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 551-562.
Schommer, M. (1994). An emerging conceptualization of epistemological beliefs and
their role in learning. In R. Garner & P. Alexander (Eds.), Beliefs about text
instruction, (pp. 25-39). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on
comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(2), 1226-1238.
Schommer, M., Calvert, C., Gargliette, G., & Bajaj, A. (1997). The development of
epistemological beliefs among secondary students: A longitudinal study. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 89, 37-40.
Schommer, M., Crouse, A. & Rhodes, N. (1992). Epistemological beliefs and
mathematical text comprehension: believing it is simple does not make it so.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 435-443.
Schommer, M. & Walker, K. (1997). Are epistemological beliefs similar across domains?
Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 424-432.
Schraw, G., Bendixen, L.D., & Dunkle, M.E. (2002). Development and validation of the
epistemic belief inventory (EBI). In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal
epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 261
275). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schraw, G., Dunkle, M.E., & Bendixen, L.D. (1995). Cognitive processes in well-defined
and ill-defined problem solving. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 523-538.
Schraw, G. J. & Olafson, L.J. (2008). Assessing teachers’ epistemological and
ontological worldviews. In M.S. Khine (ed.) Knowing, knowledge, and beliefs:
Epistemological studies across diverse cultures (25-44). Netherlands: Springer.
Sinatra, G.M. & Kardash, C.M. (2004). Teacher candidates’ epistemological beliefs,
dispositions, and views on teaching as persuasion. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 29, 483-498.
Slotta, J.D. & Chi, M.T. (2006). Helping students understand challenging topics in
science through ontology training. Cognition and Instruction, 24(2), 261-289.
White, B. C. (2000). Pre-service teachers’ epistemology viewed through perspectives on
problematic classroom situations. Journal of Education for Teaching, 26, (3),
279-305.
APPENDICES
 Appendix A

Wichita State University

Department of Curriculum and Instruction
Spring 2009
Dear Educator:
You are invited to participate in this study about personal knowledge beliefs. We hope to
learn more about factors that contribute to the development of these beliefs. You were
selected as a possible participant in this study because of your occupation as an elementary
school teacher. You are in a group of approximately 55 teachers participating in this study.

If you decide to participate, you will proceed by opening the link below in this email
message. You will then follow a set of directions within the link that will guide you through a
set of 28 questions to assess your personal beliefs about knowledge. An example item is:
“The best ideas are often the most simple.” There are no anticipated discomforts or risks
involved with this study. Your participation will require approximately 15 minutes.

The completion of this research will benefit society by increase understanding of how
personal knowledge beliefs are developed. Any information obtained in this study in which
you can be identified will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your
permission. If you would like, results of this study may be provided to you at your request.
Participation in this study is entirely voluntary. Your decision whether or not to participate
will not affect your future relations with Wichita State University or your school employer. If
you agree to participate in this study, you are free to withdraw from the study at any time
without penalty.

If you have any questions about this research, you can contact Ben Walter,
[email protected], 316-217-4709 or Dr. Linda Bakken, 151 Corbin Education
Center,1845 Fairmount, Box 28 Wichita, Kansas 67260-0028, (316) 978-3322.
If you have questions pertaining to your rights as a research subject, or about research-related
injury, you can contact the Office of Research Administration at Wichita State University,
Wichita, KS 67260-0007, telephone (316) 978-3285.

You are under no obligation to participate in this study. To participate in this study, open the
link contained in this email and follow the directions within the link. By opening the link,
you signify that you have read the information provided above and have voluntarily decided
to participate.
<iframe
src="http://spreadsheets.google.com/embeddedform?key=pWW3C6oCVDNH9zIF48IslSw"
width="500" height="6980" frameborder="0" marginheight="0"
marginwidth="0">Loading...</iframe>
You will be given a copy of this consent form to keep upon request.
Thank you,

Ben Walter
 Appendix B

Wichita State University

Department of Curriculum and Instruction

Spring 2009

Dear Graduate Students:

You are invited to participate in this study about personal knowledge beliefs. We hope to learn
more about factors that contribute to the development of these beliefs. You were selected as a
possible participant in this study because of your occupation as an educator and your graduate
education. You are in a group of approximately 40 graduate students participating in this study.

If you decide to participate, continue by following the provided directions that will guide you
through a set of 29 questions that will assess your personal beliefs about knowledge. A sample
item is: “The best ideas are often the most simple There are no anticipated discomforts or risks
involved with this study. Your participation will require approximately 15 minutes.

The completion of this research will benefit society by increasing the understanding of how
personal knowledge beliefs are developed. Any information obtained in this study in which you
can be identified will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission. If you
would like, results of this study may be provided to you at your request. Participation in this study
is entirely voluntary. Your decision whether or not to participate will not affect your future
relations with Wichita State University or your school employment. If you agree to participate in
this study, you are free to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty.

If you have any questions about this research, you can contact Ben Walter, [email protected],
316-217-4709 or Dr. Linda Bakken, 151 Corbin Education Center,1845 Fairmount, Box 28
Wichita, Kansas 67260-0028, (316) 978-3322,

If you have questions pertaining to your rights as a research subject, or about research-related
injury, you can contact the Office of Research Administration at Wichita State University,
Wichita, KS 67260-0007, telephone (316) 978-3285.

You are under no obligation to participate in this study. Your signature on this consent form
indicates that you have read the information above and voluntarily agree to participate in this
study. You will be given a copy of this consent form to keep.
 Appendix C

We want you to rate and explain your epistemological and ontological worldviews.
Please read the following descriptions of terms used in this study. Then indicate where
you would place yourself in the four quadrants by moving the oval from the center of the
axes to where your ratings intersect on the epistemology and ontology dimensions.

Descriptions: Please note that the following descriptions represent endpoints on each of
the scales. Your own beliefs may lie anywhere between these two endpoints. You may
use any part of the four quadrant area.

Epistemology

Epistemology is the study of what can be counted as knowledge, where knowledge is

located, and how knowledge increases. The personal epistemology of teachers is
characterized by a set of beliefs about learning and the acquisition of knowledge that
drives classroom instruction.

Epistemological Realist

An epistemological realist would believe that there is an objective body of knowledge

that must be acquired. From a teacher’s perspective, this position would hold that
curriculum is fixed and permanent and focuses on fact-based subject matter. An
epistemological realist might believe the following:

There are certain things that students simply need to know.

I am teaching information that requires memorization and mastery.

There are specific basic skills that need to be mastered.

Epistemological Relativist

Am epistemological relativist would describe curriculum as changing and student-

centered. Problem-based on inquiry curricula are examples at the other end of the
continuum for a perspective of a one-size-fits all curriculums. One of the central features
of curriculum from this position is the notion that curriculum is not fixed and permanent.
An epistemological relativist might agree with the following statements:

The things we teach need to change along with the world.

The content of the curriculum should be responsive to the needs of the community.
It is useful for students to engage in tasks in which there is no indisputably correct
answer. Students design their own problems to solve.

Ontology

Ontology is the study of beliefs about the nature of reality. The personal ontology of
teachers is characterized by a set of beliefs regarding whether students share a common
reality and what a classroom reality should look like.

Ontological Realist

A teacher who is an ontological realist assumes one underlying reality that is the same for
everyone. Instructionally, this means that all children should receive the same type of
instruction at the same time regardless of their individual circumstances and context. An
ontological realist would agree with the following:

Student assignments should always be done individually.

It is more practical to give the whole class the same assignment.

The teacher must decide on what activities are to be done.

Ontological Relativist

An ontological relativist assumes that different people have different realities. From an
instructional perspective, teachers are seen as collaborators, co-participants, and
facilitators of learning who work to meet the individual needs of students. Instructional
practices are less teacher-directed, such as:

Students need to be involved in actively learning through discussions, projects, and

presentations.

Students work together in small groups to complete an assignment as a team.

Schraw, G. J. & Olafson, L.J. (2008). Assessing teachers’ epistemological and

ontological worldviews. In M.S. Khine (ed.) Knowing, knowledge, and beliefs:
Epistemological studies across diverse cultures (25-44). Netherlands: Springer.
 Appendix D

1. Most things worth knowing are easy to understand.

2. What is true is a matter of opinion.

3. Students who learn things quickly are the most successful.

4. People should always obey the law.

5. People’s intellectual potential is fixed at birth.

6. Absolute moral truth does not exist.

7. Parents should teach their children all there is to know about life.

8. Really smart students don’t have to work as hard to do well in school.

9. If a person tries too hard to understand a problem, they will most likely end up being
confused.

10. Too many theories just complicate things.

11. The best ideas are often the most simple.

12. Instructors should focus on facts instead of theories.

13. Some people are born with special gifts and talents.

14. How well you do in school depends on how smart you are.

15. If you don’t learn something quickly, you won’t ever learn it.

16. Some people just have a knack for learning and others don’t.

17. Things are simpler than most professors would have you believe.

18. If two people are arguing about something, at least one of them must be wrong.

19. Children should be allowed to question their parents’ authority.

20. If you haven’t understood a chapter the first time through, going back over it won’t
help.

21. Science is easy to understand because it contains so many facts.

22. The more you know about a topic, the more there is to know.

23. What is true today will be true tomorrow.

24. Smart people are born that way.

25. When someone in authority tells me what to do, I usually do it.

26. People shouldn’t question authority.

27. Working on a problem with no quick solution is a waste of time.

28. Sometimes there are no right answers to life’s big problems.

 Appendix E

Thank you for completing the questionnaire. Please briefly provide the following
demographic information:

Sex:

Age:

Ethnicity:

Years of Teaching Experience:

Current Teaching Position: Special Education Gifted General Education

Grade level(s) you teach:

School District:

Education Level:

Bachelor’s More than Bachelors Master’s degree