Because my study focussed on beliefs about teaching, learning and beliefs about how one learns to teach, the concept of epistemological beliefs are relevant.
Epistemological beliefs are concerned with what is learnt (philosophy) and describe an individual’s beliefs about the nature of knowledge, including constructs about the structure, certainty and source of knowledge (Murphy, Alexander, Greene, & Edwards, 2007). They are also about how knowledge is learnt (psychology) and describe an individual’s beliefs about the process of knowing, including beliefs about ability and the speed of learning.
There are two perspectives on the development of epistemological beliefs. The first perspective reports that epistemological beliefs develop along a trajectory
continuum from naïve, surface and factual recall to a more sophisticated, holistic, deeply connected and integrated group of concepts. Perry’s (1968) seminal study on Harvard graduates was the basis of epistemological theories, culminating in the constructs of knowing and valuing (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997). Perry was interested in how students responded differently to the intellectual and social environment of university. He designed a Checklist of Educational Values (CLEV) based on the assumption that personalities would influence students’ descriptions of university life. He concluded that undergraduates entered their coursework with relatively naïve views about the nature of knowledge and process of knowing, and viewed knowledge as simple, certain and handed down by experts. However, by the end of their courses, many of their views had become more sophisticated and knowledge was considered complex, evolving and empirically researched (Schommer-Atkins, Duell, & Hutter, 2005). From this research emerged a system of nine intellectual and ethical positions, representing four stages of development. The four stages were described as a continuum from dualism, multiplicity, relativism and a commitment to relativism. While Perry’s
work had a number of limitations—one being the elitism and gender demographics of the participants—it laid the groundwork for future studies. Similarly to Piaget (1963), Perry concluded that changes were brought about when cognitive disequilibrium occurred. This was followed by interaction with the environment and responding to the new experience by either assimilation or accommodation.
Following from Perry’s seminal study, others have researched epistemological beliefs, with the inclusion of females (Baxter-Magolda, 1992; Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986), argumentative thinking (Kuhn, 1991) and reflective judgements (King & Kitchener, 1994). All concluded that learners had a similar trajectory from naïve and surface level understanding to sophisticated and deep understanding.
More recently, Schommer (1990) claimed that the constructs identified by Perry’s study were uni-dimensional, and as such they developed independently.
Schommer investigated how epistemological beliefs could influence comprehension and academic performance. Her studies were quantitative and analytical. Schommer
challenged the idea that epistemological beliefs were one-dimensional and fixed in stages. Instead, she proposed that epistemological beliefs were far more complex, and that a system involving five independent constructs existed. The five constructs cited by Schommer were similar to Perry’s, and included structure of knowledge, certainty or stability of knowledge, source of knowledge, control/ability, and speed of learning (Perry, 1968; Schommer, 1990). She also described the constructs along a continuum from naive to sophisticated. The structure of knowledge was viewed in the extremes, as isolated facts or integrated networks of ideas. The stability of knowledge was viewed as fixed and unchangeable, or tentative and evolving. Sources of knowledge were
fixed at birth or improvable. Finally, speed of learning was viewed as either quick, not at all or incrementally acquired.
Schommer (1990) concluded that students’ predispositions to hold certain epistemological beliefs were influenced by demographic details. In particular, the more educated the parent, the more the children were expected to be responsible and
independent, and hence the children’s epistemological beliefs were more sophisticated rather than naive. In this regard, Schommer contended that a unity of family and educational influences ‘may be the key to prevention and intervention of self-defeating epistemological beliefs’ (Schommer, 1990, p. 503).
Although the research studies described above are quantitative by design, the information contained in the quantitative surveys offer my research some quite powerful statements that will generate strong discussion points about the pre-service teacher’s expectation of learning and more specifically learning how to teach. In addition, these preconceived expectations about learning and learning to teach are likely to shape how they approach university learning. Their metacognitive understandings of how they learn are likely to influence the strategies they use, the amount of time and energy they put into learning and the degree to which they persist when faced with adversity in the form of complex language and concepts. Pre-service teachers’ concepts of learning and how these might change during the pre-service teacher education course are highly relevance to my study.
More recently, epistemological beliefs have been applied to teaching. Chan (2001) surveyed 385 Chinese students in a Certificate of Education course (two year undergraduate course) about their personal theories and conceptions of teaching and learning. The Teaching and Learning Conceptions Questionnaire (TLCQ) was
developed from both an analysis of the literature and dialogue with pre-service teachers about the work of teachers. Five constructs were identified about a concept of teaching
and learning, role and relationship of the teacher and student, role of peers and individuals versus group learning, students’ abilities and needs, and teaching and classroom management. In the pilot study of Chan’s work, pre-service teachers
appeared to refer to two broad perspectives of teaching: a traditional perspective and a constructivist perspective that were not influenced by age, gender or fields of study. Chan concluded that prior schooling, observation of teachers’ styles and being in ‘survival’ mode influenced pre-service teachers’ epistemological beliefs. These results were different from Schommer’s (1990) study, and as such, Chan (2003) proposed that cross-cultural and contextual differences intervened in the development of
epistemological beliefs. Chan concluded that pre-service teachers views ranged along a continuum from traditional to constructivist, and these views may be difficult to change as a result of inherent beliefs shaped prior to university. Chan recommended that teacher educators learn about their pre-service teachers’ personal learning theories and need to plan accordingly if they are to change their views.
An American study by Many, Howard, and Hoge (2002) focussed on how pedagogical approaches were framed with regard to epistemological stances, and how pre-service teachers described their epistemological beliefs compared with their
practices. Data from interviews, surveys, reflective journals and practicum observations were analysed using a recursive-generative approach. The researchers found that the majority of their pre-service teachers displayed evidence of both dualistic, skills orientations and holistic, constructivist stances, but with no obvious awareness of their conflicting beliefs. Thus, most pre-service teachers drew on multiple lenses for framing their beliefs, and their epistemological beliefs were interconnected in a web-like
fashion, rather than staged development. Moreover, these pre-service teachers held different views about knowledge depending on whether they viewed knowledge from the teacher’s or student’s perspective. When knowledge was viewed from a teaching
perspective it was considered outside of self and authorities, whereas when it was viewed from a learner’s perspective, knowledge was a personal, subjective experience. Many et al. concluded that the way pre-service teachers viewed knowledge and the process of knowing was critical to whether particular approaches and methodologies were considered effective.
Most recently,Walker et al. (2011) completed the first longitudinal study in Australia that investigated changes to pre-service teachers’ personal epistemologies as a result of their university experiences, and the reasons attributed to the changes. Both quantitative and qualitative research methodologies were applied over a two year period. Walker et al. found that third-year pre-service teachers were more likely than first years to believe that learning might take time, that knowledge is integrated and uncertain. The data also provided support for the move from subjectivist practical (in their first year) to more complex, evaluative beliefs (at the end of the second year). Walker et al. proposed that these changes may be related to more effective, deeper approaches to learning and critical reflection. Such findings are in line with previous research that core beliefs about knowing influence peripheral beliefs about learning (Brownlee, Boulton-Lewis, & Purdie, 2002).
In summarising epistemological beliefs, there have been repeated findings that epistemological beliefs are considered critical in understanding pre-service teachers’ practices, predicting classroom decision making and affecting pre-service teachers’ behaviours. The research indicates some contradictions in terms of how epistemological beliefs develop and that pre-service teachers can have different epistemological beliefs dependent of whether they take a teacher or learner view of ways of knowing. It is also possible that epistemological beliefs can be both traditional and constructivist. Also evident was the fact that pre-service teachers with more sophisticated understanding of knowing tended to have more complex and effective approaches to learning. Luft and
Roehrig (2007) claimed that to change pre-service teachers’ epistemological beliefs, a number of conditions need to be in place. First, learners must be dissatisfied or
uncertain with their existing beliefs, followed by the presentation of feasible alternative beliefs, and finally, connections had to be made between the old and new beliefs. Luft and Roehrig (2007) also cautioned that other factors—such as life experiences—could also contribute to epistemological beliefs.
Hence, knowledge of epistemological beliefs of pre-service teachers are relevant to my study because they influence their concepts of teaching and learning, roles and relationships of the teacher and the learner, and the degree to which these might affect their approach to their studies and approaches to teaching. Most importantly,
epistemological beliefs appear to directly affect pre-service teachers’ willingness to take on board concepts or openness to ideas that maybe different to their own. My study is interested in pre-service teachers’ approaches to learning as a student teacher and how this might influence their concept of teaching and being a teacher. Thus, I have
borrowed some statements in my survey questions from Schommer (1990), Chan (2003 and Jehng, Johnson and Anderson (1993) to present ideas that would be useful to stimulate discussions about epistemology.