Introduction

The study of history, especially within the East Asian cultural context, presents a unique intersection of traditional narratives and evolving pedagogical practices. Since 2019, Taiwan has been at the forefront of this evolution with its recent curriculum reform, aiming to deepen the development of historical thinking in education (National Academy for Educational Research, [NAER], 2018). Central to this transformation is not just the facts of history, but the beliefs and epistemologies that underpin them. This chapter sets an objective: to explore the personal trajectory of Taiwanese high school teachers’ epistemic beliefs towards history as a discipline, embedded within the broader East Asian cultural milieu.

The significance of understanding teachers’ epistemic beliefs cannot be overstated (Maggioni et al., 2009; Stoel et al., 2022). As the recent curriculum reform underscores in Taiwan, fostering historical thinking among students is intricately linked with the interplay between epistemological beliefs, pedagogical practices, and the cultural narratives that influence them. Achieving this aim requires a deep dive into how Taiwanese teachers, situated within the East Asian cultural context, perceive, internalise, and transmit history.

Contributing to this multifaceted academic conversation, this chapter introduces fresh insights through the lens of the Epistemic Network Analysis (ENA, Shaffer, 2017). By employing ENA, this chapter offers an integrated discussion on the shifts in teachers’ historical epistemic beliefs throughout one academic year. Significantly, this research introduces a pattern-based model, presenting a novel methodological approach that deviates from conventional developmental stage-like models. Moreover, by delineating four distinct patterns of historical epistemic beliefs and emphasising their cultural nuances, we aim to enrich the existing discourse and set a foundation for future research implications.

Thus, this chapter not only delves deep into the realm of teachers’ beliefs but also positions itself within the broader dialogue on historical education in Taiwan, adding layers of methodological, analytical, and cultural insights to the discussion of this ongoing topic.

The Foundations of Research on Epistemological Beliefs

Perry’s (1970) seminal longitudinal study at Harvard was the bedrock of personal epistemology, charting students’ intellectual and ethical development across four broad phases: dualism, multiplicity, relativism, and commitment within relativism. This classification was drawn from a decade of open-ended interviews with a cohort of nearly 150 undergraduates. Expanding on this foundation, King and Kitchener (2001) concentrated on the concept of epistemic assumptions, particularly reasoning. Over fifteen years, they used interview studies to build the Reflective Judgment Model, examining three levels of epistemological progression and how individuals justify beliefs surrounding complex problems. Shifting the lens slightly, Kuhn (1999) opted to study everyday reasoning with ill-structured problems across a more varied demographic.

These models mentioned above share similar assumptions and illustrate similar trajectories of development. On a different track, Schommer-Aikins (2004) placed her focus on independent beliefs and proposed a model that sees epistemic beliefs as a spectrum, not static stages or positions. She reshaped Perry’s work into the Epistemological Beliefs Questionnaire, a significant milestone providing a comprehensive tool for exploring how epistemological beliefs relate to learning. The four factors in this model are characterised as Certain Knowledge (knowledge is certain or evolving), Simple Knowledge (knowledge is isolated bits of information or highly interrelated concepts), Quick Learning (learning occurs in all-or-nothing situations or as a gradual enterprise), and Fixed Ability (intelligence is fixed or incremental) (Schommer-Aikins, 2004).

Taking a divergent path, Hofer and Pintrich (1997) put forward a model with four dimensions of epistemology: certainty of knowledge, simplicity of knowledge (clustered into the area of ‘the nature of knowledge’), source of knowledge and justification of knowledge (clustered into the area of ‘the process of knowing’), highlighting the variability of epistemic beliefs across different disciplines. Their approach spurred more research into discipline-specific personal epistemology, particularly within mathematics (Corte et al., 2002) and science (Bell & Linn, 2002). Yet, a significant gap remains in the discipline of history.

Epistemological Beliefs about History as a Discipline

The aforementioned research offers a wealth of insights for Maggioni et al. (2009) as they delve into the interplay between epistemic beliefs and historical thinking, taking inspiration from studies on personal epistemology such as those by King and Kitchener (2001). Upon resolving the measurement challenges associated with employing traditional written tools (Wood et al., 2002) that have been derived from the Reflective Judgment Interview (King & Kitchener, 2001), Maggioni et al. (2009) put forward a novel instrument: The Beliefs about Learning and Teaching of History Questionnaire. The intention behind this questionnaire is to provide an easily manageable, domain-specific, and objectively scorable tool (Maggioni et al., 2009).

This methodology led to the identification of four distinct epistemic profiles: dichotomous thinkers (who believe ‘the unmediated nature of historical knowledge accompanies a view of history as prevalently subjective’), naïve realist (characterised by ‘the belief in a perfect correspondence between the past and history’), relativist (whose emphasis is on ‘the subjective nature of historical knowledge’ but ‘the historical method is not deemed an effective tool to deal with problems of conflicting or missing evidence’), and criterialist (referring to the attempt to ‘search for the best explanation through the patient’s weaving together of the best evidence and the best argument available’) (Maggioni et al., 2004). Each profile represents a unique perspective on the nature of historical knowledge and the methodologies for its interpretation. Such an approach provides a nuanced framework for domain-specific measurements of epistemological beliefs, fostering a more profound understanding of the progression of historical thinking. Furthermore, the findings underscore a crucial pedagogical implication: the necessity for explicit instruction and exposure to the heuristics of history to facilitate the evolution of teachers’ and students’ domain-specific epistemic beliefs. However, this research provides limited guidance on how to implement a Teacher Professional Development (TPD) intervention concerned with the evolution of epistemic beliefs.

Furthering the investigations into domain-specific epistemic beliefs (Maggioni et al., 2009) and integrating with van Drie and van Boxel’s (2008) structure of historical thinking, Havekes et al. (2012) introduce a conceptual model on the interactions between students’ epistemic positions and the processes of understanding and practising history. This framework identifies three distinct epistemic positions, namely: copier stance (referring to students who believe an exact copy of the past could be produced), borrower stance (students in this stance understand that the past cannot be copied exactly, which requires using sources to reconstruct but they also believe that the fixed procedure of doing history is possible), and criterialist stance (in this stance, students not only ask critical questions and engage in historical sources to construct the past but also understand that both knowing and doing history are not fixed but debatable). Importantly, these stances do not exist in isolation; rather, they intersect and interact with all other aspects of understanding and practising history.

Teacher’s Personal Epistemology and Teaching

Research on teachers’ personal epistemic beliefs and teaching practice has largely focused on preservice teachers’ beliefs about knowledge. For instance, Sinatra and Kardash (2004) found that the epistemic beliefs of preservice teachers could be used to predict their openness to new metaphors of teaching. Brownlee et al. (2001) investigated how preservice teachers’ personal epistemology changed during the course of the one-year teaching programme, and they proposed a conceptual framework. Highlighting the role of teachers’ epistemic beliefs and motivations, Patrick and Pintrich (2001) emphasise the need for beliefs to be challenged and openly discussed. Regarding domain-specific epistemic beliefs in history, Bouhon (2009) characterises three types of teacher beliefs: (1) exposition-recital, which considers transmitting historical knowledge as the main purpose of instructions; (2) discourse-discovery, which focuses on knowledge acquisition and the training of historical thinking; and (3) apprenticeship-research, builds historical consciousness and an understanding of historical research. Similarly, McCrum (2013) divides history teachers into two broad categories: teacher-centred and pupil-centred, which can result in different preferences for pedagogical instruction.

Drawing on the literature, VanSledright and Reddy (2014) proposed an interventional Teacher Professional Development (TPD) for prospective history teachers to influence their epistemic beliefs. The intervention consists of a series of sessions (14) in which epistemic beliefs about history are explicitly introduced and a set of teaching-learning strategies designed to reveal prospective teachers’ epistemic beliefs and open them up for consideration and discussion. The Beliefs about History Questionnaire (Maggioni et al., 2009) and interviews were employed to explore the trajectories of epistemic beliefs. The results indicate that some of the preservice teachers remained unaffected by the course, whereas others changed dramatically due to the difficulty of ‘working out a successful coordination between themselves as knowers and what can be known about the past through its remaining objects’ (VanSledright & Reddy, 2014). However, the study fails to explain how the interventional TPD could be improved since the programme played a crucial role in the research.

In a more recent study, Wilke et al. (2022) explore 21 history teachers’ personal epistemology in Flanders. This research suggests that while nuanced epistemological beliefs are crucial for interpretive history teaching, they are not sufficient. It underlines the importance of other beliefs, contextual factors, and teachers’ competency in creating materials that enhance students’ historical thinking and epistemological reflection.

Overall, the review reveals that only limited research has paid attention to addressing teachers’ epistemic beliefs before implementing a new pedagogical approach in class.

Understanding Taiwan as the Research Context: The Nature of History in East Asian Context

Taiwan remains steeped in shared Chinese cultural traditions, especially Confucian traditions. Throughout China’s history, discussions on history’s nature and purpose have been dominated by the ruling class, who sought guidance from past events for political decision-making. For instance, in the Zhou Dynasty (1046–256 BCE), a historian, Zhou Gong (周公), proposed history education for emperors, advocating learning from past dynastic errors to bolster the empire. This perspective was later embraced by Confucius, who integrated history into his private school curriculum using his compiled texts, such as the Spring and Autumn Annals (「春秋」). Confucian teachings emphasised history education’s dual purpose: guiding rulers towards virtue-driven governance (「仁政」) and fostering societal order through cultural heritage preservation.

The same approach was employed by Emperor Taizong of Tang (唐太宗, 598–649 AD), who once famously stated that using history as a mirror allows one to see the future trends. The explicit analogy of history as a mirror later became an implicit preconception about the nature of history subscribed to by many (Lee, 2007) and later integrated into Sima Guang’s (司馬光, 1084) influential work, Comprehensive Mirror in Aid of Governance (「資治通鑑」) (Lee, 2007). Sima’s work informed Zhu Xi’s (朱熹, 1130–1200 AD) philosophical shift in the purpose of history—moving from governance structure maintenance to moral decision—using history as a moral compass for judgements (Lee, 2009).

During the Qing Dynasty (1636–1912), history education became institutionalised as moral education. The classics, including The Analects (「論語」) and I Ching (「易經」), became pivotal for history instruction. Any divergence from the established historical interpretation was severely penalised (Lee, 2007).

However, with the establishment of a modern nation, the Republic of China (ROC), Western influences reshaped the education system, using history to cultivate a patriotic citizenry. After relocating to Taiwan, the ROC employed history education to consolidate its power and forge a Chinese identity (Shi, 2014; Du, 2009). With Taiwan’s democratic evolution, history education reforms have emerged, focusing on concepts like historical thinking and consciousness, informed by Western scholars (e.g., Lee, 2005; Seixas, 2017; Wineburg, 2010; Hsiao, 2009; Huang et al., 2011).

Study Overview

Seven teachers from three different schools were recruited in this study. The teaching experience of the teachers ranged from two years to more than 20 years (M = 11.8). In order to explore teachers’ epistemic beliefs in depth, the method of interviewing is desired as one which provides access to the context of people’s behaviour, and consequently, researchers could have a better understanding of the meaning of that behaviour (Seidman, 2006).

Typically, researchers use ill-structured problems to probe interviewees’ reasoning and code their response into different stages (e.g. King and Kitchener’s (2001) Reflective Judgment and Kuhn’s (1999) six levels of epistemological thinking). Hence, informed by their work, the semi-interviews of this study consisted of two parts: (1) Part 1: Questions about the nature of history, such as ‘How would you describe history as an academic discipline?’ and ‘Do you think that one historical theory can be superior to another? Why (not)?’ (2) Part 2: Here, interviewees will be given two conflicting accounts of a historical event and asked questions such as if the accounts were different and, if so, how?; and can both accounts be correct or is one account ‘more true’ than the other? (See also Lee (2005) and Hsiao (2009) for the use of conflicting historical accounts in interviews.). Two sets of interviews were conducted before and after one academic year to explore the trajectories of teachers’ personal epistemology about history.

Using Epistemic Network Analysis to Explore Personal Epistemology

In this study, Epistemic Network Analysis (ENA) was employed to analyse the complexity of personal epistemology (Shaffer, 2017). Networks are visualised using network graphs where nodes correspond to the codes, and edges reflect the relative frequency of co-occurrence, or connection, between two codes. The result are two coordinated representations for each unit of analysis: (1) a plotted point, which represents the location of that unit’s network in the low-dimensional projected space, and (2) a weighted network graph. The positions of the network graph nodes are fixed, and those positions are determined by an optimisation routine that minimises the difference between the plotted points and their corresponding network centroids. In this study, ENA was used to explore how the participants’ epistemic beliefs connected are shown in their discourse during interviews.

To conduct ENA, a coding framework to code the data from interviews is needed. Relevant literature has been reviewed and reconceptualised into the coding framework of this study. This presented framework (see Appendix 1, also see Table 16.1 for a brief overview of the initials of code names) is the product of a research project conducted in Taiwan, which has been under development through an iterative process of application and refinement. The proposed framework is broadly divided into two overarching categories: the nature of knowledge and the process of knowing (Schommer-Aikins, 2004). The first category delineates into two dimensions: the certainty of knowledge and the simplicity of knowledge, while the latter encompasses the source of knowledge and the justification of knowledge (Hofer, 2001, 2004a, 2004b). Furthermore, each dimension can be approached from both objective and subjective perspectives, as discussed by Maggioni et al. (2004). Therefore, this coding schema for epistemic beliefs comprises a total of eight codes, as illustrated in Table 16.1 and Appendix 1. In order to ascertain the inter-rater reliability, an entire transcript from one of the interviewees was independently coded by both me and a secondary researcher. This other researcher had been thoroughly briefed about this coding system’s theoretical underpinnings and conceptual architecture. Each code was analysed in terms of presence (1) and absence (0) and then calculated by using Cohen’s kappa (κ) performed on SPSS (v.25). A few codes (e.g. SiKO and SoKS) with value <0.5 have been refined and discussed within coders to investigate the disagreement of the scheme.

Table 16.1 An overview of the acronyms of code names with the inter-rater reliability
Full size table

After data from interviews had been coded with the framework above, the Epistemic Network Analysis was then run to generate the results (see Appendix 2 for all figures). The resulting networks are aggregated for all lines for each unit of analysis in the model. In this model, networks were aggregated using a binary summation in which the networks for a given line reflect the presence or absence of the co-occurrence of each pair of codes. The final model had coregistration correlations of 0.98 (Pearson) and 0.97 (Spearman) for the first dimension and coregistration correlations of 0.99 (Pearson) and 0.98 (Spearman) for the second. These measures indicate a strong goodness of fit between the visualisation and the original model. For each teacher, the figure on the left-hand and right-hand side illustrates the pattern of his/her historical epistemic beliefs before and after one academic year respectively.

An Illustration of Exploring Teachers’ Historical Epistemic Beliefs

The result of ENA indicates that Teacher Chou, among other teachers, saw the most significant changes in her epistemology throughout the year. To explore further, a fine-grained qualitative analysis was conducted in complement to the statistical analysis. In the analysis of the first set of data, the strongest connection between SoKSFootnote 1 and JKO (M = 0.23) suggests the teacher has a clear and firm understanding of what she believes the nature of history to be. Like any other well-trained history expert, Chou often cited various scholars (e.g., Ranke) and literature (e.g., The Historian’s Craft by Marc Bloch, 1953) to support her argument when required regarding conflicting historical sources (Wineburg, 2010). Chou also suggested that, when using sources, students should be cautious about not only the content of the sources but also the contextual background of the authors (Wineburg, 2010) to develop more in-depth and critical thinking (M[SiKS-JKO] = 0.28). For instance, regarding the subjectivity of sources, she argued, ‘because these sources were selected actively by the historians who always have their own agenda, you have to take that into account’ (interview dataFootnote 2). However, this constructivist perspective regarding epistemic beliefs does not quite reflect her teaching practice. In her classroom, from my observation, a substantial amount of time (95%) was devoted to Chou’s own monologue, lecturing students about the historical facts from the textbook they used. In her interview, she admitted, ‘most of the time, I’m just spoon-feeding them the knowledge they need to know...because we don’t really have much time for discussion and you know there’s lots of content to catch up on before the exams’ (interview data) (CKO-SiKO, mean = 0.69).

In the postinterview, the changes were transparent in these aspects. Firstly, when asked about the nature of the discipline, Chou responded by highlighting the importance of ‘inquiry [into] the truth’ (interview data). This belief influenced her pedagogical approach this academic year via a transition to a more inquiry-based teaching practice (M[SoKS-JKO] = 0.36) to accommodate the new curriculum. Secondly, she also emphasised teaching contextualisation as one of the main goals of history education, by which students can develop their historical empathy and ‘become a person with more compassion and warmth’. Chou concluded that her belief regarding the nature of history is twofold: one, a more external purpose is to understand the disciplinary approach, and the other is a more intrinsic aspect to ‘know humans and oneself more deeply’ (interview data) (M[SiKS-SoKS] = 0.33). Finally, these changes were not only apparent in the analysis but also clear in her teaching practice, in which she adopted a more dialogic approach to co-explore historical inquiry (Lévesque & Clark, 2018) with the students to accommodate the latest curriculum (NAER, 2018). She also placed greater emphasis on developing the students’ historical thinking, such as contextualisation and historical empathy (Seixas, 2017).

Four Key Patterns of Historical Epistemic Beliefs

In this study, ENA was employed to analyse teachers’ epistemologies of history as a discipline. Using ENA enabled the analysis to generate a model in accordance with the coding instrument, which was reconceptualised and synthesised from previous literature (e.g., Maggioni et al., 2004; Schommer-Aikins, 2004). The model, as stated in the research aims, is not an attempt to provide a developmental category for each individual’s epistemic beliefs (e.g., see King & Kitchener, 2001; Kuhn, 1999); instead, this study aims to provide a conceptual model for exploring the complexity and nuances in personal epistemologies with visualised patterns from ENA. In the rest of the chapter, I discuss some key patterns that emerged from the results of the analysis.

Pattern 1: ‘Mirror’ belief (CKO-SiKO-SoKO) (Fig. 16.1)

Fig. 16.1
A 4-quadrant graph. The data points from the first to the fourth quadrants are labeled S o K S, C K S and S i K S, S i K O, S o K O, C K O, and J K S, and J K O, respectively. In the third quadrant, S i K O, S o K O, and C K O K S are connected with lines.

The pattern for ‘Mirror-like belief’

Full size image

The first key pattern found in this study aligns with what Kuhn (1999) refers to as absolutist and Maggioni et al. (2004) identified as naïve realist, which means the individual believes that knowledge is certain and there is a perfect correspondence between the past and history (the connection of CKO-SiKO). This perspective was reinforced by an unquestioning belief in the authoritative voice, such as those in textbook narratives or from certain historians (CKO-SoKO). Individuals with this pattern of beliefs had very rigid, dichotomous thinking, with their judgement confined to what they had learnt from the experts (SiKO-SoKO). This perspective reflects the traditional Chinese view of history as a ‘mirror’, which can be used as a lesson and moral compass for judgement (Wang, 2015). The explicit analogy of history as a mirror later became an implicit preconception about the nature of history (Lee, 2007).

Pattern 2: Multiple and relativist beliefs (CKS-SiKS-JKS) (Fig. 16.2)

Fig. 16.2
A 4-quadrant graph. The data points from the first to the fourth quadrants are labeled S o K S, C K S and S i K S, S i K O, S o K O, C K O, and J K S, and J K O, respectively. The data points in the second and the third quadrants are interconnected with lines.

The pattern for multiple and relativist belief

Full size image

In the second key pattern found in the analysis, the strong connections between CKS, SiKS, and JKS indicate that, in contrast to the first pattern, some individuals held a subjective perspective about historical knowledge. The findings suggest that individuals with this pattern usually believed in the uncertainty of historical knowledge for two reasons. First, they were sceptical about the absolute truth about historical accounts because no historians witnessed the incidents, meaning they could not know nor figure out everything from the past. Since historical knowledge is too uncertain and complex to be judged right or wrong, the teachers also tended to believe that every opinion and theory proposed by historians is equally valid and valuable (CKS-SiKS-JKS). This pattern is similar to what Maggioni et al. (2004) refer to as relativist, and it is a vital transition to a more advanced epistemic stance (Kuhn, 1999).

Pattern 3: Absolute and constructivist beliefs (CKO-SoKS-JKO) (Fig. 16.3)

Fig. 16.3
A 4-quadrant graph. The data points from the first to the fourth quadrants are labeled S o K S, C K S and S i K S, S i K O, S o K O, C K O, and J K S, and J K O, respectively. The data points in the first, third, and fourth quadrants are interconnected with lines forming a triangle.

The pattern for absolute and constructivist belief

Full size image

The third key pattern from the findings suggests that teachers held an objective perspective about the certainty of historical knowledge, meaning believing in the existence of absolute truth (CKO). However, unlike other patterns and findings from relevant studies (e.g., Havekes et al., 2012; Hsiao, 2009; Maggioni et al., 2004), individuals with this pattern also believed that history is constructed by a group of people, including oneself (SoKS). Therefore, to reach a consensus, certain criteria should be met to make an objective judgement (JKO). It is noticeable that this is the first pattern in which individuals started to acknowledge the importance of evidence-based arguments, and historical interpretations were required to be examined carefully using historical sources, either firsthand or second-hand (van Drie & van Boxel, 2008, 2018).

Pattern 4: Expert-like beliefs (SiKS-SoKS-JKO) (Fig. 16.4)

Fig. 16.4
A 4-quadrant graph. The data points from the first to the fourth quadrants are labeled S o K S, C K S and S i K S, S i K O, S o K O, C K O, and J K S, and J K O, respectively. The data points in the first, second, and fourth quadrants are interconnected with lines forming a triangle.

The pattern for expert-like beliefs

Full size image

The final key pattern indicates more sophisticated epistemic beliefs, described as criterialist by Maggioni et al. (2004; see also Havekes et al., 2012 for similar findings on the notion of a criterialist stance). Individuals with this pattern were usually teachers with high-level historical knowledge. These individuals acknowledged that history is a complex set of inter-related accounts situated in a specific historical and cultural context (SiKS); however, they also emphasised the importance of how evidence, such as historical texts, construct more objective historical knowledge, which should also be evaluated and carefully examined using a rigorous historical research methodology (SoKS-JKO). Having a well-developed understanding of history as a discipline, these individuals often cited well-known historians as examples to provide the theoretical foundation for their own responses. A few individuals even demonstrated holistic viewpoints on some well-debated topics in historiography to provide a clear and impartial argument. For instance, when asked about the nature of history, Teacher Lin started to introduce the comparison between Western and Chinese traditional views on history and discussed the inevitable subjectivity involved in history writing, using a famous quote from the Italian historian Benedetto Croce. This finding echoes Wineburg’s (2010) study on the differences between experts’ and novices’ historical thinking (see also VanSledright, 2002).

These four key patterns emerging from the findings provide a potential and more nuanced model for analysing teachers’ historical epistemic beliefs using quantitative analysis. However, as emphasised above, this study is not an attempt to generate a category-like model in which each individual’s personal epistemology can be clearly categorised into a box. The main purpose of presenting these four patterns is to illustrate the complexity and subtlety through visualisation in the course of analysing epistemic beliefs. This model could be used to identify the major dimension of an individual’s epistemological stance by examining the pattern-matching. The pattern-like model could also deeply explore the nuances and diversity of an individual’s historical epistemic beliefs, even the contradictory ones. Finally, this model could be used to form an illustrative ‘picture’ of the trajectory of change in teachers’ epistemic beliefs over a certain period. This ‘picture’ contains rich information about a person’s personal epistemology, and it is easy to perform a comparative analysis with other ‘pictures’ via both quantitative and qualitative analysis.

Conclusion

The central rationale of this chapter was to understand the nuances and trajectories of Taiwanese high school teachers’ epistemic beliefs about history, especially within the cultural context of East Asia. This exploration is premised on the belief that teachers’ epistemological stances significantly influence the pedagogical practices of historical thinking. Utilising the Epistemic Network Analysis (ENA) and a pattern-based model, this research presented an alternative perspective, diverging from traditional stage-like developmental models. The findings not only reinforce established literature (e.g., Havekes et al., 2012) but also, through the prism of ENA, offer richer insights into individual belief nuances.

A critical revelation was the disconnect between teachers’ strong convictions about history and their self-awareness of these beliefs. This disconnect underscores the potential challenges in cultivating advanced historical thinking in students.

Given these insights, there’s a pressing need for further research. Validating the patterns and framework introduced herein is essential, emphasising the intertwined relationship between epistemic beliefs and history education, especially within specific cultural contexts.