Exploring the Relationship Between High School Students’ Physics-Related Personal Epistemologies and Self-regulated Learning in Turkey

  • Muhammet Mustafa AlpaslanEmail author
  • Bugrahan Yalvac
  • Cathleen C. Loving
  • Victor Willson


This article reports on an empirical exploration of the relations and strengths among Turkish grades 9–11 students’ (n = 209) personal epistemologies (justification of knowledge, certainty of knowledge, source of knowledge, development of knowledge), self-regulated learning (extrinsic motivation, intrinsic motivation, rehearsal, elaboration, organization, critical thinking, metacognitive self-regulation), and achievement in physics (course grades). Established instruments were used to collect data on these students’ beliefs about knowledge and components of self-regulated learning (SRL) such as goal orientations (extrinsic and intrinsic motivation) and learning strategies, critical thinking, and metacognitive regulation. Results from structural equation modeling revealed that students’ personal epistemologies directly influenced their motivation (extrinsic and intrinsic goal orientations), rehearsal and organization strategies, and metacognitive self-regulation to learn physics. Furthermore, students’ personal epistemologies indirectly (mediated through motivation beliefs) influenced rehearsal, elaboration and organization strategies, critical thinking, and metacognitive self-regulation to learn physics. Students’ ideas about knowledge and knowing about the source and development of knowledge significantly contributed to students’ self-regulatory skills and physics course grade. Implications and future directions are discussed.


Personal epistemology Physics education Self-regulated learning Structural equation modeling 


  1. Bromme, R., Pieschl, S. & Stahl, E. (2010). Epistemological beliefs are standards for adaptive learning: A functional theory about epistemological beliefs and metacognition. Metacognition and Learning, 5(1), 7–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cabrera-Nguyen, P. (2010). Author guidelines for reporting scale development and validation results in the Journal of Society for Social Work and Research. Journal of Society for Social Work and Research, 1, 99–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chinn, C. A. & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Conley, A. M., Pintrich, P. R., Wekiri, I. & Harrison, D. (2004). Changes in epistemological beliefs in elementary science students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 186–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cramer, D. (1998). Fundamental statistics for social research. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Credé, M. & Phillips, L. A. (2011). A meta-analytic review of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(4), 337–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Dole, J. A. & Sinatra, G. M. (1998). Reconceptualizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 33, 109–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Duit, R., Neidderer, H. & Schecker, H. (2007). Teaching physics. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 599–629). Hillsdale, MI: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Ehrlich, R. (2002). How do we know if we are doing a good job in physics teaching? American Journal of Physics, 70, 24–29.Google Scholar
  11. Eilam, B., Zeidner, M. & Aharon, I. (2009). Student conscientiousness, self-regulated learning, and science achievement: An explorative field study. Psychology in the Schools, 46(5), 420–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Elby, A. (1999). Another reason that physics students learn by rote. American Journal of Physics, 67(7), 52–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elliot, A. & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2×2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gungor, A. A., Eryilmaz, A. & Fakioglu, T. (2007). The relationship of freshmen’s physics achievement and their related affective characteristics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1036–1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gürçay, D., & Balta, E. (2013). The effect of Turkish students’ motivational beliefs on their metacognition self-regulation in physics. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 14(2), Article 13. Retrieved from
  16. Hofer, B. K. (2000). Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in personal epistemology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 378–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hofer, B. K. (2001). Personal epistemology research: Implications for learning and teaching. Educational Psychology Review, 13(4), 353–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hofer, B. K. (2004). Epistemological understanding as a metacognitive process: Thinking aloud during online searching. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 43–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hofer, B. K. & Pintrich, P. R. (Eds.). (2002). Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Hofer, B. K. & Sinatra, G. M. (2010). Epistemology, metacognition, and self-regulation: Musings on an emerging field. Metacognition and Learning, 5, 113–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hsu, Y.-S., Yen, M.-H., Chang, W.-H., Wang, C.-Y. & Chen, S. (2014). Content analysis of 1998–2012 empirical studies in science reading using a self-regulated learning lens. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1007/s10763-014-9574-5
  22. Hu, L. & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ibrahim, B., Buffler, A. & Lubben, F. (2009). Profiles of freshman physics students’ views on the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 248–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kardash, C. & Scholes, R. J. (1996). Effects of pre-existing beliefs, epistemological beliefs, and need for cognition on interpretation of controversial issues. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 260–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kenny, D. A. (2014). Measuring model fit. Retrieved from
  26. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
  27. Koksal, M. S. (2011). Epistemological predictors of self-efficacy on learning biology and test anxiety related to evaluation of learning on biology for pre-service elementary teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(7), 661–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Koponen, I. & Mantyla, T. (2006). Generative role of experiments in physics and in teaching physics: A suggestion for epistemological reconstruction. Science & Education, 15(1), 31–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kuhn, D. (2000). Metacognition development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 178–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kurt, F. (2009). Investigating students’ epistemological beliefs through gender, grade level, and fields of the study (Unpublished master’s thesis), Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.Google Scholar
  31. Lin, T.-C., Hsu, Y.-S., Lin, S.-S., Changlai, M.-L., Yang, K.-Y. & Lai, T.-L. (2012). A review of empirical evidence on scaffolding for science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10, 437–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lin, Y.-C., Liang, J.-C. & Tsai, C.-C. (2012). The relationships between epistemic beliefs in biology and approaches to learning biology among biology-major university students in Taiwan. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21, 796–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Meltzer, D. E. (2002). The relationship between mathematics preparation and conceptual learning gains in physics: A possible “hidden variable” in diagnostic pretest scores. American Journal of Physics, 70, 1259–1268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ministry of National Education (2011). Ortaogretim Fizik Dersi Ogretim Programi [Secondary school physics education program]. Ankara, Turkey: Milli Egitim Bakanligi.Google Scholar
  35. Muis, K. R. (2007). The role of epistemic beliefs in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 42, 173–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Muis, K. R., Bendixen, L. D. & Haerle, F. (2006). Domain-generality and domain-specificity in personal epistemology research: Philosophical and empirical reflections in the development of a theoretical framework. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 3–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Muis, K. R. & Franco, G. M. (2009). Epistemic beliefs: Setting the standards for self-regulated learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(4), 306–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. National Research Council (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K–8. In R. A. Duschl, H. A. Schweingruber, & A. W. Shouse (Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  39. Ozkan, S. (2008). Modeling elementary students’ science achievement: The interrelationships among epistemological beliefs, learning approaches, and self-regulated learning strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.Google Scholar
  40. Paulsen, M. B. & Feldman, K. A. (2007). The conditional and interaction effects of epistemological beliefs on the self-regulated learning of college students: Cognitive and behavioral strategies. Research in Higher Education, 48(3), 353–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451–502). San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
  42. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T. & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, MI: National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.Google Scholar
  43. Popham, J. W. (2012). Assessment bias: How to banish it? (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  44. Redish, E. F. & Steinberg, R. N. (1999). Teaching physics: Figuring out what works. Physics Today, 52(1), 24–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ryu, S. & Sandoval, W. A. (2012). Improvements to elementary children’s epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation. Science Education, 96(3), 488–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Samarapungavan, A., Westby, E. L. & Bodner, G. M. (2006). Contextual epistemic development in science: A comparison of chemistry students and research chemists. Science Education, 90, 468–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schommer-Aikins, M., Duell, O. K. & Hutter, R. (2005). Epistemological beliefs, mathematical problem-solving beliefs, and academic performance of middle school students. The Elementary School Journal, 105(3), 289–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sin, C. (2014). Epistemology, sociology, and learning and teaching in physics. Science Education, 98, 342–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sinatra, G. M. (2005). The warming trend in conceptual change research: The legacy of Paul R. Pintrich. Educational Psychologist, 40, 107–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stathopoulou, C. & Vosniadou, S. (2007). Exploring the relationship between physics-related epistemological beliefs and physics understanding. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 255–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sungur, S. (2004). The implementation of problem-based learning in high school biology courses (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.Google Scholar
  52. Taasoobshirazi, G. & Sinatra, G. M. (2011). A structural equation model of conceptual change in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 901–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Thomas, G. P. (2013). Changing the metacognitive orientation of a classroom environment to stimulate metacognitive reflection regarding the nature of physics learning. International Journal of Science Education, 35(7), 1183–1207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Topçu, M. S. (2013). Preservice teachers’ epistemological beliefs in physics, chemistry, and biology: A mixed study. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11, 433–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  56. Yang, F.-Y. & Tsai, C.-C. (2012). Personal epistemology and science learning: A review on empirical studies. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 259–280). New York, NY: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7_19.
  57. Yore, L. D. & Treagust, D. F. (2006). Current realities and future possibilities: Language and science literacy—empowering research and informing instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 291–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Yumusak, N., Sungur, S. & Cakiroglu, J. (2007). Turkish high school students’ biology achievement in relation to academic self-regulation. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13(1), 53–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Muhammet Mustafa Alpaslan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Bugrahan Yalvac
    • 2
  • Cathleen C. Loving
    • 2
  • Victor Willson
    • 3
  1. 1.Muğla Sitki Koçman UniversityMuğlaTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Teaching, Learning, and CultureTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA
  3. 3.Department of Educational PsychologyTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations