Measurement of Epistemological Beliefs and Learning Strategies of Elementary School Children

  • Barbara Moschner
  • Andrea Anschuetz
  • Stephan Wernke
  • Uta Wagener

Abstract

Research about epistemological beliefs and learning strategies is a steadily growing area in educational psychology and in the field of education. Subjects in most of the published studies are adults or teenagers, only a few studies deal with children or even elementary school children. Some experts doubt if children have epistemological beliefs, others question if they have the competence to talk about abstract concepts like beliefs about knowledge and knowing or learning strategies. In addition measurement issues are far from being resolved.

In this chapter we first give a short overview of existing studies about epistemological beliefs and learning strategies in elementary school children. We look at the connection between epistemological beliefs and learning strategies and propose that epistemological beliefs and learning strategies are closely related.

In another step we review methodological issues. What are the advantages and the disadvantages of the used measurements? Merits and shortcomings are discussed. We show that research on epistemological beliefs of children may benefit from the methodological discussion in the field of learning strategies and self-regulated learning. We address developmental prerequisites and methodological problems concerning research in this age group. Finally, we discuss the relevance of different measurements for future research with young children.

Keywords

Migration Coherence Pyramid Weinstein 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender-related patterns in students’ intellectual development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  2. Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2002). Epistemological reflection: The evolution of epistemological assumptions from age 18 to 30. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 89–102). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s way of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  4. Boekaerts, M., & Markku, N. (2000). Self-regulated learning. Finding a balance between learning goals and ego-protective goals. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 417–449). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boekaerts, M., & Corno, L. (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom: A perspektive on assessment and intervention. Applied Psychology, 54(2), 199–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Butler, D. L. (2002). Qualitative approaches to investigating self-regulated learning: Contributions and challenges. Educational Psychologist, 37, 59–63.Google Scholar
  7. Chandler, M. J., Hallett, D., & Sokol, B. W. (2002). Competing claims about competing knowledge claims. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 145–168). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Clarebout, G., Elen, J., Luyten, L., & Bamps, H. (2001). Assessing epistemological beliefs: Schommer’s questionnaire revisited. Educational Research and Evaluation, 7, 53–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Conley, A. M., Pintrich, P. R., Vekiri, I., & Harrison, D. (2004). Changes in epistemological beliefs in elementary science students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 186–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Corno, L. (2001). Volitional aspects of self-regulated learning. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd edn., pp. 191–226). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Demetriou, A. (2000). Organization and development of self-understanding and self-regulation. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 209–251). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Elder, A. D. (2002). Characterizing fifth grade students’ epistemological beliefs in science. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 347–363). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87(3), 215–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Flavell, J. H., Green, F. L., & Flavell, E. R. (1995). Young children’s knowledge about thinking. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 60(1), 1–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Garner, R. (1988). Verbal-report data on cognitive and metacognitive strategies. In C. E. Weinstein, E. T. Goetz, & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Learning and study strategies: Issues in assessment instruction, and evaluation. Educational psychology (pp. 63–76). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hallett, D., Chandler M. J., & Krettenauer, T. (2002). Disentangling the course of epistemic development: Parsing knowledge by epistemic content. New Ideas in Psychology, 20, 285–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Härle, F. C. (2006). Personal epistemologies of 4th graders. Their beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Oldenburg: Didaktisches Zentrum.Google Scholar
  19. Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Mason, L. H. (2006). Improving the writing, knowledge, and motivation of struggling young writers: Effects of self-regulated strategy development with and without peer-support. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 295–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing process. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Hofer, B. (2004a). Epistemological understanding as a metacognitive process: Thinking aloud during online searching. Educational Psychologist, 39, 43–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hofer, B. K. (2004b). Exploring the dimensions of personal epistemology in differing classroom contexts: Students interpretations during the first year of college. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 129–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Kuhn, D. (2000). Theorie of mind, metacognition, and reasoning: A life-span perspective. In K. J. Riggs & P. Mitchell (Eds.), Children’s reasoning and the mind (pp. 301–326). Hove, UK: Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  25. Kuhn, D., Cheney, R., & Weinstock, M. (2000). The development of epistemological understanding. Cognitive Development, 15, 309–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgement: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  27. King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (2002). The reflective judgement 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, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  28. Kopp, C. B. (1982). Antecedents of self-regulation: A developmental perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18, 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Leopold, C., & Leutner, D. (2002). Der Einsatz von Lernstrategien in einer konkreten Lernsituation bei Schülern unterschiedlicher Jahrgangsstufen. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 45 (Beiheft), 240–258.Google Scholar
  30. Lompscher, J. (1995a). Erfassung von Lernstrategien mittels Fragebogen. Lern- und Lehrforschung, LLF-Berichte Nr. 10 (S. 80–150). Potsdam: Universität Potsdam.Google Scholar
  31. Lompscher, J. (1995b). Learning strategies in 4th, 6th, and 8th grade students. In C. Aarnoutse, F. de Jong, H. Lodewijks, R. J. Simons, & D. v.d. Aalsvoort (Eds.), Abstracts of the 6th European conference for research on learning and instruction (p. 527). Nijmegen: University of Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  32. Lompscher, J. (1996). Erfassung von Lernstrategien auf der Reflexionsebene. Empirische Pädagogik, 10, 245–275.Google Scholar
  33. Mansfield, A. F., & Clinchy, B. McV. (2002). Toward the integration of objectivity and subjectivity: Epistemological development from 10 to 16. New Ideas in Psychology, 20, 225–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Meyer, D. K., & Turner, J. C. (2002). A classroom perspective on the principle of moderate challenge in mathematics. Journal of Educational Research, 97(6), 311.Google Scholar
  35. Patrick, H., & Middleton, M. J. (2002). Turning the kaleidoscope: What we see when self-regulated learning is viewed with a qualitative lens. Educational Psychologist, 37, 27–39.Google Scholar
  36. Perry, N. E. (1998). Young children’s self-regulated learning. The Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(4), 715–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Perry, N. E., VandeKamp, K. O., Mercer, L. K., & Nordby, C. J. (2002). Investigating teacher-student interactions that foster self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 37(1), 5–16.Google Scholar
  38. Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  39. Peterson, P. L., Swing, S. R., Braverman, M. T., & Buss, R. (1982). Students’ aptitudes and their reports of cognitive processes during direct instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40.Google Scholar
  40. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Future challenges and directions for theory and research on personal epistemology. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 389–413). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  42. Purdie, N., Hattie, J., & Douglas, G. (1996). Student conceptions of learning and their use of self-regulated learning strategies: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 87–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 498–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schommer, M. (1994). An emerging conceptualization of epistemological beliefs and their role in learning. In R. Garner & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Beliefs about text and instruction with text (pp. 25–40). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  45. 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.Google Scholar
  46. 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, 82, 435–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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.Google Scholar
  48. Spoerer, N. (2004). Validation of a structured interview for assessing self-regulated learning strategies. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  49. Spoerer, N., & Brunstein, J. C. (2005). Diagnostik von selbstgesteuertem Lernen. In B. Moschner & C. Artelt (Eds.), Lernstrategien und Metakognitionen–Implikationen für Forschung und Praxis. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  50. Souvignier, E., & Roes, K. (2005). Lernstrategien und Lernerfolg bei komplexen Leistungsanforderungen–Analysen mit Fragebogen und Lerntagebuch. In B. Moschner & C. Artelt (Eds.), Lernstrategien und Metakognitionen–Implikationen für Forschung und Praxis. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  51. Turner, J. C. (1995). The influence of classroom contexts on young children’s motivation for literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 410–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Veenman, M. V. J. (2005). The assessment of metacognitive skills: What can be learned from multi-method designs? In B. Moschner & C. Artelt (Eds.), Lernstrategien und Metakognitionen–Implikationen für Forschung und Praxis. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  53. Veermans, M., & Järvelä, S. (2004). Generalized achievement goals and situational coping in inquiry learning. Instructional Science, 32, 269–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Weinstein, C. E. (1988). Assessment and training of student learning strategies. In R. R. Schmeck (Eds.), Learning strategies and learning styles (pp. 291–316). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  55. Wild, K-P., & Schiefele, U. (1994). Lernstrategien im Studium. Ergebnisse zur Faktorenstruktur und Reliabilität eines neuen Fragebogens. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 15, 185–200.Google Scholar
  56. Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. E. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 535–566). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  57. Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 614–628.Google Scholar
  58. Zimmermann, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (Eds.) (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievment: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  59. Zwaan, R. A., & Brown, C. M. (1996). The influence of language proficiency and comprehension skill on situation-model construction. Discourse Processes, 21, 289–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara Moschner
    • 1
  • Andrea Anschuetz
    • 1
  • Stephan Wernke
    • 1
  • Uta Wagener
    • 1
  1. 1.Carl von Ossietzky Universität OldenburgOldenburgGermany

Personalised recommendations