The Effect of Multidimensional and Developmental Approach of Teaching on Epistemic Cognition of 6th Grade Students: An Intervention Program in Science Education

PDF (ελληνικά)
Published: Oct 27, 2017
DOI: https://doi.org/10.12681/ppej.14282
Keywords:
epistemic cognition intervention program multidimensional approach developmental approach Science Education
Kalia Ioannou
Πανεπιστήμιο Frederick, Λευκωσία
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7466-2689
Nikoletta Christodoulou
Πανεπιστήμιο Frederick, Λευκωσία
Abstract
The present study explored the effects of a different type of teaching on epistemic cognition of 6th grade students through an intervention program in the science class. Epistemic cognition concerns how people acquire, understand, justify, change, and use knowledge (Greene, Sandoval, & Bråten, 2016). The study addressed the question of how the type of approach affected the development of epistemic cognition among young children, by extending previous research that examined the relation between epistemic cognition and intervention programmes in adults. Nine 6th grade classes completed paper-and-pencil instruments to measure their epistemic cognition and cognitive ability. Twelve of the students also participated in an individual semi-structured interview. Students’ epistemic cognition was assessed using a short version of Schommer’s questionnaire for students. The students’ cognitive ability was assessed through Raven’s Progressive Matrices (1998). The present study aspired to find which of the main approaches is more effective for the development of students’ epistemic cognition and if cognitive ability can predict epistemic cognition. Three of the classes were randomly put in the Control Group that had courses in science education, three were randomly put in the Experimental Group Α, following the multidimensional approach, and three were randomly put in the Experimental Group Β, following the developmental approach. The nine 6th grade classes completed paper-and-pencil instruments to measure their epistemic cognition and cognitive ability, to examine possible changes in epistemic cognition and a possible relation between epistemic cognition and cognitive ability. Students’ epistemic cognition was assessed using the short version of Schommer’s et al. questionnaire (2000) for young students. Students’ cognitive ability was assessed through the Raven’s Progressive Matrices (Raven, Raven, & Court, 1998). Then, twelve of these students participated in an individual semi-structured interview, where they were asked about the effectiveness of the intervention program. The results showed the effectiveness of multidimensional teaching, which is also confirmed through the analysis of qualitative data, in contrast to the developmental intervention. The analysis of the interviews showed that all students believed that truth can be found through research.  Also, according to the results, the multidimensional teaching approach can predict cognitive ability at the level of epistemic cognition. The present study aims to assist in increasing students’ epistemic cognition which is so important for forming citizens capable of meeting the needs of the 21st century. The benefits that result from the long-term intervention will be communicated to the Ministry of Education and Culture and propose radical changes in the Curriculum in terms practices that could be implemented in the teaching of science that will help in the development of elementary school students΄epistemic cognition
Article Details
  • Section
  • Articles
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g. post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (preferably in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Author Biographies
Kalia Ioannou, Πανεπιστήμιο Frederick, Λευκωσία
Υποψήφια Διδάκτωρ, Τμήμα Επιστημών Αγωγής
Nikoletta Christodoulou, Πανεπιστήμιο Frederick, Λευκωσία
Λέκτορας, Τμήμα Επιστημών Αγωγής
References
Bendixen, L. D. (2002). A process model of epistemic belief change. Στο B. K. Hofer and P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 191–208). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bendixen, L. D., & Rule, D. C. (2004). An integrative approach to personal epistemology: A guiding model. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 69–80.
Bendixen, L. D., Schraw, G., & Dunkle, M. E. (1998). Epistemic beliefs and moral reasoning, Journal of Psychology, 13(2), 187–200.
Bråten I., Braasch J.L.G. (2017). Key Issues in Research on Students’ Critical Reading and Learning in the 21st Century Information Society. In: Ng C., Bartlett B. (eds) Improving Reading and Reading Engagement in the 21st Century. Springer, Singapore
Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2010). When Lau students read multiple documents about global warming: examining the role of topic-specific beliefs about the nature of knowledge and knowing, Instructional Science, 38(6), 635-657.
Bromme, R., Kienhues, D., & Porsch, T. (2010). Who knows what and who can we believe? Epistemological beliefs are beliefs about Knowledge (mostly) to be attained from others. Στο L.D. Bendixen & F. C. Haerle (Eds), Personal Epistemology in the Classroom: Theory, Research, and Implications for Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brownlee, J., Purdie, N., & Boulton-Lewis, G. (2001). Changing epistemological beliefs in pre-service teacher education students. Teaching in Higher Education 6(2), 247-268.
Chen, C., & Chang, C. (2008). The effect of a teaching program on changing students’ epistemological beliefs and learning. The International Journal of Learning 15(3), 161-167.
Chinn, C. A., Rinehart, R. W., & Buckland, L. A. (2014). Epistemic cognition and evaluating information: Applying the AIR model of epistemic cognition. Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences, 425-453.
Conley, A. M., Pintrich, P. R., Vekiri, I., & Harrison, D. (2004).Changes in epistemological beliefs in elementary science students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(2), 186-204.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers.
Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of research in education, 32(1), 268-291.
Greene, J.A., Sandoval, W.A., & Bråten, I. (2016). An introduction to epistemic cognition. Στο J.A. Greene, W.A. Sandoval, & I. Bråten, (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 1-15). New York: Routledge.
Hofer, B. (1994). Epistemological beliefs and first-year college students: Motivation and cognition in different instructional contexts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles.
Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: beliefs about knowledge and knowing their relation to learning, Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88-140.
Holloway, I., & Wheeler, S. (1996). Qualitative research for nurses. London: Blackwell Science.
Iordanou, K., & Constantinou, C. P. (2014). Developing pre-service teachers' evidence-based argumentation skills on socio-scientific issues. Learning and Instruction, 34, 42-57.
Kienhues, D., Bromme, R., & Stahl, E. (2008). Changing epistemological beliefs: The unexpected impact of a short-term intervention. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(4), 545–565.
Kienhues, D., Stadler, M., & Bromme, R. (2011). Dealing with conflicting or consistent medicalinformation on the web: When expert information breeds laypersons’ doubts about experts, Learning and Instruction, 21(2), 193-204.
King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kittleson, J.M. (2010). Epistemological beliefs of third-grade students in an investigation-rich classroom. Science Education, 95(6), 1026-1048.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The Skills of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridgre University Press.
Kuhn, D., & Weinstock, M. (2002). What is epistemological thinking and why does it matter? Στο B.K. Hofer & P.R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal Epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing, (pp.121-144). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Limon, M. (2006). The domain generality–specificity of epistemological beliefs: A theoretical problem, a methodological problem or both? International Journal of Educational Research, 45(1), 7–27.
Magolda, M. B. (2004).Evolution of constructivist conceptualization of epistemological reflection. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 31–42.
Muis, K., & Franco, G. (2009). Epistemic profiles and metacognition: support for the consistencyhypothesis, Metacognition Learning, 5(1), 27-45.
Munro BH, & Page EB (1993). Statistical methods for health care research. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: J.B. Lippincott company.
Murphy, P. K., Firetto, C. M., Wei, L., Li, M., & Croninger, R. M. V. (2016). What really works: Optimizing discussions to promote comprehension and critical-analytic thinking. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 27–35.
Organization of Economic and Cultural Development. (2013). PISA 2015 draft frameworks. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaprod ucts/pisa2015draftframeworks.htm
Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Raven, J. C., Raven, J. E. & Court, J. H. (1998). Progressive matrices. Oxford, England7 Oxford Psychologists Press.
Sandoval, W.A., Greene, J.A., & Bråten, I. (2016). Understanding and promoting thinking about knowledge: Origin, issues, and future directions of research on epistemic cognition. Review of Research in Education, 40, 457–496.
Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 498-504.
Schommer, M. (1993a). Comparisons of beliefs about the nature of knowledge and learning among postsecondary students. Research in Higher Education, 34(3), 355-370.
Schommer, M., & Dunnel, P. (1997). The potential influence of epistemological beliefs on gifted underachievers. Roe per Review, 19, 153-156.
Schommer, M., Mau W., Brookhart S., & Hutter R. (2000). Understanding Middle Students' Beliefs About Knowledge and Learning Using a Multidimensional Paradigm. The Journal of Educational Research, 94, 120-127.
Snow, C., & Hemphill, L. (in press). Learning to read while reading to learn: The central role of multiple documents in two instructional programs. In J. L. G. Braasch, I. Bråten, & M. T. McCrudden (Eds.), Handbook of multiple source use. New York, NY: Routledge
Stahl, E., & Bromme, R. (2007). The CAEB: An instrument for measuring connotative aspects of epistemological beliefs, Learning and Instruction, 17(8), 773–785.
Valanides, N., & Angeli, C. (2005). Effects of instruction on changes in epistemological beliefs. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(2005), 314–330.
Weinstock, M. (2006). Psychological Research and the Epistemological Approach to Argumentation, Informal Logic, 26(2), 103-120.
Wilkinson, I. A. G., & Son, E. H. (2011). A dialogic turn in research on learning and teaching to comprehend. In M. L. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. B. Moje, & P. P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4, pp. 359–387). New York, NY: Routledge.
Υπουργείο Παιδείας, Δια βίου Μάθησης και Θρησκευμάτων (2003). Διαθεματικό Ενιαίο Πλαίσιο Προγραμμάτων Σπουδών (Δ.Ε.Π.Π.Σ.) και Αναλυτικά Προγράμματα Σπουδών (Α.Π.Σ.) Υποχρεωτικής Εκπαίδευσης. Αθήνα: Παιδαγωγικό Ινστιτούτο. Αναλήφθηκε από http://www.pi-schools.gr/programs/depps/
Υπουργείο Παιδείας και Πολιτισμού (2010). Αναλυτικά Προγράμματα Προδημοτικής, Δημοτικής και Μέσης Εκπαίδευσης. Λευκωσία: Παιδαγωγικό Ινστιτούτο Κύπρου - Υπηρεσία Ανάπτυξης Προγραμμάτων. Αναλήφθηκε από http://www.moec.gov.cy/analytika_programmata