<p>Epistemological Beliefs of Engineering Students</p>

Abstract

This study examined undergraduate and graduate engineering students’ epistemological beliefs as a function of their educational level. Schommer’s (1998) Epistemological Questionnaire was used to assess the beliefs in quick learning, certain knowledge, fixed ability, and simple knowledge of 396 students attending two universities in Western Tennessee. Additional analyses examined the effects of background characteristics, such as gender, ethnicity, and high school grade point average. Results indicated that freshmen and sophomores were more likely than juniors and seniors to have beliefs in quick learning and certain knowledge above and beyond the effects of the background characteristics. There were no significant differences in graduate students’ and undergraduate students’ beliefs. The results of this study also indicate that engineering students’ beliefs are related to their advancement in problem-solving processes in an undergraduate engineering curriculum.

Epistemological and reading beliefs profiles and their role in multiple text comprehension

“…These results point in the same direction as those obtained in some researches carried out with secondary school students (Mason et al, 2006) and with undergraduates in the domain of engineering (King & Magun-Jackson, 2009), in which women showed more sophisticated beliefs than men. Similar results for --245 --Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 14(2), 226-252.…”

Development and initial validation of a questionnaire to assess the reading beliefs of undergraduate students: the Cuestionario de Creencias sobre la Lectura

“…In terms of educational level, differences have been observed in the degree of sophistication of beliefs between undergraduate and secondary school students (Schommer, ) and between graduates and undergraduates (Jehng, Johnson, & Anderson, ), in favour of those who were at the higher level. In the case of undergraduates, some studies report differences between course years (King & Magun‐Jackson, ) while others do not (Hakan & Münire, ; Jehng et al, ; Ulucinar, Akar, Demir, & Demirhan, ). These results suggest that research on beliefs should include participants from both genders and from across different knowledge areas and educational levels.…”

Accounting for Context beyond Domain: An Authentic Practice-based Framework for Advancing Personal Epistemology Research

“…This body of work generally recognizes four dimensions of knowledge and knowing (source, certainty, justification, and structure) (Hofer, 2004). The second category is concerned with stages of development of personal epistemologies (Baxter Magolda, 1992;Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986;Carberry, Ohland, & Swan, 2010;Jehng, Johnson, & Anderson, 1993;King & Kitchener, 1994;King & Magun-Jackson, 2009;Kuhn, Cheney, & Weinstock, 2000;Kuhn & Weinstock, 2002;Pavelich & Moore, 1996;Perry, 1970;Schommer-Aikins, 2002;Wise, Lee, Litzinger, Marra, & Palmer, 2004). The third category of research is concerned with domains and whether PE should be considered domain-general or domain-specific (Buehl & Alexander, 2005;Buehl, Alexander, & Murphy, 2002;DeBacker et al, 2008;Elby, 2001;, 2003Hofer, 2000;Lising & Elby, 2005;Louca, Elby, Hammer, & Kagey, 2004;Mason, 2002;Muis, Bendixen, & Haerle, 2006;Wood & Kardish, 2002;Yerdelen-Damar, Elby, & Eryilmaz, 2012).…”