Adolescents’ epistemic profiles in the service of knowledge revision

Abstract

Refutation texts have been previously shown to be effective at promoting knowledge revision. The current study builds on recent trends to gain deeper insights into how this learning advantage can be enhanced and extended to more learners. In particular, we examined whether distinct epistemic profiles can be discerned on the basis of individuals' beliefs about justification for knowing (i.e., justification by authority, personal opinion, or multiple sources) in the natural sciences. Further, we designed refutation texts according to this trichotomous framework of epistemic justification. We tested whether profiles stronger in certain dimensions would attain higher learning scores over others and whether consistency between profiles and texts would confer a learning advantage compared to when these factors were inconsistent. Results showed that distinct epistemic profiles are discernable and a profile with stronger preference for justification by multiple sources, authority, and lower preference for justification by personal opinion in natural science attained higher learning scores. Further, higher learning scores were observed when refutation texts justified by authoritative explanations were consistent with one cluster dominant in preference for justification by authority. Theoretical and instructional design implications are discussed.

Epistemic beliefs and prior knowledge as predictors of the construction of different types of arguments on socioscientific issues

“…Regarding the relationship between prior knowledge and epistemic beliefs, our results demonstrate an association between epistemic beliefs, particularly beliefs about the structure of knowledge, and depth of prior knowledge, when the latter was assessed through concept mapping (Hiebert & Carpenter, 1992;Hiebert & Lefevre, 1986), but not with prior knowledge of isolated scientific concepts, which was assessed by open-ended questions (Hiebert & Carpenter, 1992;Hiebert & Lefevre, 1986) related to a SSI. This finding is in line with previous research suggesting that epistemic beliefs may limit or promote conceptual change and topic conceptual understanding (Amin et al, 2014;Stathopoulou & Vosniadou, 2007a, 2007bTrevors, Kendeou, et al, 2017;Trevors, Muis, Pekrun, Sinatra, & Muijselaar, 2017). For example, students who think science involves only a description of facts may be more likely to focus on isolated phenomena.…”

“…Furthermore, previous research suggests that epistemic beliefs may limit or promote conceptual change and topic conceptual understanding (Amin, Smith, & Wiser, 2014;Stathopoulou & Vosniadou, 2007a, 2007bTrevors, Kendeou, Bråten, & Braasch, 2017), which means that the investigation of the interrelationship of epistemic beliefs, topic conceptual understanding, and argumentations skills is an important issue for research.…”

“…According to Toulmin (1972), argumentation is intertwined with reasoning and critical thinking and is the mechanism for creating and using knowledge. Researchers also highlight that domain-specific knowledge has a critical role in scientific reasoning, and that well-structured knowledge can sustain higher levels of reasoning than poorly structured knowledge (Amin et al, 2014;Carey, 1985;Chinn & Duncan, 2018;Koslowski, 1996;Osborne et al, 2016;Osborne & Simon, 2008;Schauble, 1996;Stathopoulou & Vosniadou, 2007a, 2007bTrevors, Kendeou, et al, 2017;Von Aufschnaiter, Erduran, Osborne, & Simon, 2008). Yet, our understanding of how prior-knowledge contributes to argumentation skills is still not clear (Crooms, Sampson, & Enderle, 2018).…”

Investigating relations between beliefs about justification for knowing, interest, and knowledge across two socio-scientific topics

“…The Justification for Knowing Questionnaire (JFK-Q) was used to assess beliefs about justification for knowing in the domain of science. This measure was initially described by and , and has later been used and validated in several studies (e.g., Trevors et al, 2017). It consists of 18 items written to assess three dimensions of justification for knowing: personal justification, justification by authority, and justification by multiple sources.…”

“…Of note is that beliefs falling on these three epistemic belief dimensions are considered domain-specific in the sense that they vary across academic domains or disciplines (Muis, Bendixen, & Haerle, 2006).¹ A number of recent empirical studies have established links between beliefs about justification for knowing and learning and performance Conley, Pintrich, Vekiri, & Harrison, 2004;Greene et al, 2010;Mason, Ariasi, & Boldrin, 2011;Mason, Boldrin, & Ariasi, 2010;Muis, 2008;Muis & Franco, 2010;Strømsø & Bråten, 2009). With respect to research conducted within the trichotomous framework described above, the general trend is that beliefs in personal justification are negatively related to performance whereas beliefs in justification by multiple sources are positively related to performance (Bråten, Anmarkrud, Brandmo, & Strømsø, 2014;Bråten & Ferguson, 2014;Bråten, Ferguson, Anmarkrud, Strømsø, & Brandmo, 2014;Bråten, Ferguson, Strømsø, & Anmarkrud, 2013;Bråten, Ferguson, Strømsø, & Anmarkrud, 2014;Kendeou, Braasch, & Bråten, 2016;Trevors, Kendeou, Bråten, & Braasch, 2017). Of note is that different measures of performance have been used in this body of research, ranging from multiple text comprehension to conceptual change learning and science achievement.…”