Advertisement

Metacognition and Learning

, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp 17–37 | Cite as

Epistemological beliefs and self-regulated learning with hypertext

  • Stephanie Pieschl
  • Elmar Stahl
  • Rainer Bromme
Article

Abstract

This study investigated the relationship between epistemological beliefs, prior domain knowledge and self-regulated learning. Biology students (n = 25) and humanities students (n = 26) who varied in their epistemological beliefs learned with a hierarchical hypertext about the topic of genetic fingerprinting. During their learning processes, logfiles and questionnaire data were collected. Results indicate that students do metacognitively calibrate their learning process to the complexity of the presented learning material, e.g. by processing more complex deeper-level nodes longer. Furthermore, these calibration processes were significantly related to epistemological beliefs. For example, more ‘sophisticated’ epistemological beliefs were associated with processing more nodes, whereas more ‘naïve’ beliefs were related to spending more time on single nodes. Both effects were especially pronounced on deeper hierarchical hypertext levels. Prior domain knowledge also had an impact, especially on comprehensibility ratings: biology students considered all nodes more comprehensible than humanities students. Additionally, epistemological beliefs as well as prior domain knowledge were also significantly associated with the learning outcome: for example, more prior domain knowledge led to significantly higher learning outcome.

Keywords

Epistemological beliefs Metacognitive calibration Self-regulated learning Hypertext navigation Prior domain knowledge 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG). We thank Stephanie Adrian, Sabine Joachim and Mike Pillukat, the student research assistants of this project, and Tom Murray who introduced us to MetaLinks, the authoring software used to create our hypertext. Furthermore, we thank anonymous reviewers who commented on an earlier version of this article for the 2006 CogSci conference and Marc Stadtler for their helpful feedback.

References

  1. Bartholomé, T., Stahl, E., Pieschl, S., & Bromme, R. (2006). What matters in help-seeking? A study of help effectiveness and learner-related factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 113–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2004). Evolution of constructivist conceptualization of epistemological reflection. Educational Psychologist, 39, 31–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bendixen, L. D., & Hartley, K. (2003). Successful learning with hypermedia: The role of epistemological beliefs and metacognitive awareness. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 28, 15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Braten, I., Stromso, H. I., & Samuelstuen, M. S. (2005). The relationsship between internet-specific epistemological beliefs and learning within internet technologies. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33, 141–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bromme, R., Kienhues, D., & Stahl, E. Knowledge and epistemological beliefs: An intimate but complicate relationship. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing, knowledge, and beliefs: Epistemological studies across diverse cultures. New York: Springer. (in press).Google Scholar
  6. Bromme, R., & Stahl, E. (2003). The impact of epistemological beliefs on e-learning: The case of help-seeking. In F. W. Hesse & Y. Tamura (Eds.), The joint workshop of cognition and learning through media-communication for advanced e-learning (pp. 29–35). Berlin.Google Scholar
  7. Buehl, M. M., & Alexander, P. A. (2001). Beliefs about academic knowledge. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 385–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buehl, M. M., Alexander, P. A., & Murphy, P. K. (2002). Beliefs about schooled knowledge: Domain specific or domain general? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 415–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Calisir, F., & Gurel, Z. (2003). Influence of text structure and prior knowledge of the learner on reading comprehension, browsing and perceived control. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 135–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clarebout, G., Elen, J., Luyten, L., & Bamps, H. (2001). Assessing epistemological beliefs: Schommer’s questionnaire revisited. Educational Reserach and Evaluation, 7, 53–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2001). On the substance of a sophisticated epistemology. Science Education, 85, 554–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ford, N., & Chen, S. Y. (2000). Individual differences, hypermedia navigation and learning: an empirical study. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9(4), 281–311.Google Scholar
  13. Grimm, L. G., & Yarnold, P. (Eds.) (1995). Reading and understanding multivariate statistics. Washington: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  14. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  15. Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2002). On the form of a personal epistemology. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  16. Hofer, B. K. (2004). Epistemological understanding as a metacognitive process: Thinking aloud during online searching. Educational Psychologist, 39, 43–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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, 88–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (Eds.) (2002). Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Huitema, B. E. (1980). The analysis of covariance and alternatives. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  20. Jacobson, M. J., Maouri, C., Mishra, P., & Kolar, C. (1996). Learning with hypertext learning environments: Theory, design, and research. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 5, 239–281.Google Scholar
  21. Jacobson, M. J., & Spiro, R. J. (1995). Hypertext learning environments, cognitive flexibility, and the transfer of complex knowledge: An empirical investigation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12, 301–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kardash, C. M., & Howell, K. L. (2000). Effects of epistemological beliefs and topic-specific beliefs on undergraduates’ cognitive and strategic processing of dual-positional text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 524–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (2002). The reflective judgment model: Twenty years of research on epistemic cognition. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 37–61). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  24. Kitchener, K. S. (1983). Cognition, metacognition, and epistemic cognition. Human Development, 26, 222–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kuhn, D. (2000). Metacognitive development. Current directions in psychological science, 9, 178–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lind, G., & Sandmann, A. (2003). Lernstrategien und Domänenwissen [Learning strategies and domain knowledge]. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 211(4), 171–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Maki, R. H., Foley, J. M., Kajer, W. K., Thompson, R. C., & Willert, M. G. (1990). Increased processing enhances calibration of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 609–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mason, L., & Boscolo, P. (2004). Role of epistemological understanding and interst in interpreting a controversy and in topic-specific belief change. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 103–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Michell, T. J. F., Chen, S. Y., & Macredie, R. D. (2005). Hypermedia learning and prior knowledge: domain expertise vs. system expertise. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Murray, T. (2003). MetaLinks: Authoring and affordances for conceptual and narrative flow in adaptive hyperbooks. Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Education, 13, 2–4.Google Scholar
  32. Nelson, T. O., & Dunlosky, J. (1991). When people’s judgements of learning (JOLs) are extremely accurate at predicting subsequent recall: the “delayed-JOL effect”. Psychological Science, 2, 267–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Reynolds, R. E. (1992). Selective attention and prose learning: Theoretical and empirical research. Educational Psychology Review, 4, 345–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rouet, J.-F., Favart, M., Britt, M. A., & Perfetti, C. A. (1997). Studying and using multiple documents in history: effects of discipline expertise. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 85–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rozendaal, J. S., de Brabander, C. J., & Minnaert, A. E. (2001). Boundaries and dimensionality of epistemological beliefs. Paper presented at the bi-annual conference of the European Association of Research on Learning and Instruction, Fribourg, Swizerland.Google Scholar
  36. Salmerón, L., Kintsch, W., & Canas, J. (2006). Reading strategies and prior knowledge in learning from hypertext. Memory & Cognition, 34, 1157–1171.Google Scholar
  37. Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 498–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schommer, M. (1993). Epistemological development and academic performance among secondary students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 406–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stahl, E., & Bromme, R. CAEB. An instrument to measure connotative aspects of epistemological beliefs. Learning and Instruction (in press).Google Scholar
  40. Stahl, E., Pieschl, S., & Bromme, R. (2006). Task complexity, epistemological beliefs and metacognitive calibration: An exploratory study. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35, 319–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  42. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
  43. Trautwein, U., & Lüdtke, O. Predicting global and topic-specific certainty beliefs: Domain-specificity and the role of the academic environment. British Journal of Educational Psychology (in press).Google Scholar
  44. Weaver, C. A., & Bryant, D. S. (1995). Monitoring of comprehension: The role of text difficulty in metamemory for narrative and expository text. Memory & Cognition, 23, 12–22.Google Scholar
  45. Windschitl, M., & Andre, T. (1998). Using computer simulations to enhance conceptual change: The roles of constructivist instruction and student epistemological beliefs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 145–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  47. Wood, P., & Kardash, C. A. (2002). Critical elements in the design and analysis of studies of epistemology. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 231–260) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Psychological DepartmentUniversity of MuensterMuensterGermany
  2. 2.University of EducationFreiburgGermany

Personalised recommendations