Consistent results with the consistency hypothesis? The effects of epistemic beliefs on metacognitive processing

Abstract

We explored relations between students' epistemic beliefs, metacognitive monitoring and recall performance in the context of learning physics through metaphor. Eighty-three university undergraduate students completed questionnaires designed to measure their epistemic beliefs and prior knowledge about Newtonian physics. Students were epistemically profiled as rational, empirical, or metaphorical in their approaches to knowing. Using a think-aloud protocol, students read a text on Newton's First and Third Laws. The text included metaphors as examples of the various laws described. Results revealed that students profiled as metaphorical engaged in more metacognitive processing compared to students profiled as rational or empirical. Moreover, path analyses revealed that metacognitive monitoring positively predicted recall performance. Results challenge Muis' (2008) consistency hypothesis; the ways in which knowledge is represented in text may be the linking factor for relations between metacognitive monitoring and epistemic beliefs rather than the underlying epistemology of the domain.

Epistemic Perspective and Online Epistemic Processing of Evidence: Developmental and Domain Differences

“…study epistemic perspective and epistemic processing. The studies described in section 1.2.2., among others (e.g., Lin, Liang, & Tsai, 2012;Muis & Franco, 2010;Muis, Kendeou, & Franco, 2011;Stahl, Pieschl, & Bromme, 2006), suffer from the same limitations as studies that explored relations between epistemic perspective and learning: They employed self-report measures to assess epistemic processing, which have notable psychometric problems (see Winne, Jamieson-Noel, & Muis, 2002). Furthermore, research examining relations between epistemic perspective and epistemic processing examined epistemic processing after engagement in an activity, employing offline methods through retrospective interviews (e.g., Mason, et al, 2010) or questionnaires in which participants reported the frequency of engagement in epistemic processing in a particular course (Muis & Franco, 2010).…”

The Personal Epistemologies of Civil Engineering Faculty

“…and actual epistemological realities of engineering that our research seeks to investigate. Finally, much of the research using developmental models has failed to take into account the increasingly supported domain-specific nature of personal epistemology (Hofer, 2000;Muis et al, 2006;Muis, Kendeou, & Franco, 2011). A young college student's apparently general absolutism could adapt quite well to the traditional, lecture-based courses experienced by many engineering students.…”

“…Increasingly, researchers are approaching personal epistemology as domain-specific, arguing the attempt to describe an individual's generalized personal epistemology is misguided and explains the poor validity of quantitative measures (Greene, Torney-Purta, & Azevedo, 2010;Lim on Luque, 2003;Muis et al, 2006). The most successful quantitative assessments of personal epistemology limit their measurements to a single academic domain like physics or mathematics (Franco et al, 2011;Greene, Torney-Purta, & Azevedo, 2010). These researchers call for the development of domain-specific models of personal epistemology.…”

“…Significant challenges have been raised regarding the assumption that researchers can reliably observe or infer their participants' beliefs and that participants' personal epistemologies are best characterized according to some underlying theme or theory (Elby, 2009;Sandoval, 2005Sandoval, , 2009). Our definition acknowledges those challenges and other recent developments (Greene, Torney-Purta, & Azevedo, 2010;Greene, Muis, & Pieschl, 2010;Muis et al, 2011) without becoming incommensurate with past theoretical developments or datasets. Hofer's (2001) categories of personal epistemology, for example, were developed to categorize beliefs, but can as easily be applied to stances.…”

“…Developmental models tend to describe more fully developed epistemologies in terms of their contrast with traditional science (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997; Perry, ; Schommer‐Aikins, ), and it is precisely the differences between the generalized ideals of science and actual epistemological realities of engineering that our research seeks to investigate. Finally, much of the research using developmental models has failed to take into account the increasingly supported domain‐specific nature of personal epistemology (Hofer, ; Muis et al, ; Muis, Kendeou, & Franco, ). A young college student's apparently general absolutism could adapt quite well to the traditional, lecture‐based courses experienced by many engineering students.…”