Influence of resource and content on epistemic beliefs about general pedagogical knowledge. Research data of an experimental study.
Educational PsychologyAuthors(s) / Creator(s)
Merk, SamuelSchneider, Jürgen
Syring, Marcus
Bohl, Thorsten
Abstract
In educational psychology epistemic beliefs are a popular research topic. The present study analyzes effects of source and context on theory-specific epistemic beliefs of graduate students about pedagogical knowledge. Graduate students in teacher education are presented with texts describing six research topics from the field of pedagogical knowledge equally with regard to contents, but different with regard to sources and context (with vs without scholarly context). To each of these research topics several covariates as well as epistemic beliefs were investigated resulting in a split-plot design.
The construct of Theory specific relativism showed factorial invariance for all theories. If the source of knowledge is „expert advice“ Theory specific relativism shows smaller arithmetic means, whereby it shows higher values for theories from humanities.
The construct of Theory practice relation showed factorial invariance for all theories, too. Theory practice relation can be predicted by epistemic beliefs and study interest with moderate effect sizes after controlling for source and context.
Persistent Identifier
https://doi.org/10.5160/psychdata.bltn15ep11Year of Publication
2016Funding
How to cite
Study Description
Research Questions/Hypotheses:
- Humanities-rational research subjects are judged more relativistically.
- Pedagogical knowledge coming from expert or scientific source is judged less relativistically than lay knowledge.
- Pedagogical knowledge presented embedded in school context is judged more relativistically.
Research Design:
Experimental Design, Mixed Design; repeated measurements
Measurement Instruments/Apparatus:
To examine the source and context sensitivity of epistemological beliefs, “six texts with identical content on topics related to the companion course in education were varied in source and context”(Merk et al., 2016). The texts were created using a multi-step process described in Merk et al (2016). The variation of the source was three-stage (“experience report” vs “expert advice” vs “scientific study”), and the variation of the context was two-stage (“without school context” vs “with school context”). This resulted in a 2×3 design with six-level within factor (Merk et al., 2016).
In existing courses (group size approximately 30), student teachers were introduced to the survey by a trained test administrator for approximately 7 min using a test administration manual. They were then randomly assigned a test booklet that had one of the 2×3 experimental conditions. This was followed by the processing of the test booklets, which took approximately 60 min.
Items used to elicit epistemological beliefs included the Connotative Aspects of Epistemological Beliefs (CAEB), Theory Specific Epistemological Beliefs Questionnaire (TSEBQ), and the Questionnaire to Assess the Developmental Level of Epistemological Beliefs (FREE).
Data Collection Method:
Data collection in the presence of an experimenter
- Group Administration
- Paper and Pencil
Population:
Graduate students in teacher education
Survey Time Period:
Sample:
Convenience Sample
Gender Distribution:
66,9 % female subjects (n=216)
32,5 % male subjects (n=105)
0,6 % missing value (n=2)
Age Distribution: 18 – 62 years
Spatial Coverage (Country/Region/City): Germany/Baden-Württemberg/Tübingen
Subject Recruitment:
Announcement by lecturers.
Sample Size:
323 individuals
Return/Drop Out:
MD5: 1c9f27e4148c69c8280b733feaec42ec
MD5: 6d52621cd51eb0a123ee18e495c62f4e
Position | Name | Label | Valid Values | Missing Values |
---|---|---|---|---|
1
|
PSEUDONYM
|
Pseudonym
|
Zeichenkette "Pseudonym"
|
-999 "Fehlender Wert"
|
2
|
SOURCE
|
Informationsquelle
|
Zeichenkette "Informationsquelle"
|
-999 "Fehlender Wert"
|
3
|
ZEIT
|
Datum und Uhrzeit der Datenerhebung
|
Zeichenkette "Datum im Format DD.MM.YYY Zeit im Format hh:mm"
|
-999 "Fehlender Wert"
|
4
|
TC_02_NP
|
Theory Specific Epistemological Beliefs Questionnaire (TSEBQ, 2009). Certainity. Item 2.
|
1 "stimme gar nicht zu"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 "stimme voll zu"
|
-999 "Fehlender Wert"
|
5
|
TJ_04_NP
|
Theory Specific Epistemological Beliefs Questionnaire (TSEBQ, 2009). Justification. Item 4.
|
1 "stimme gar nicht zu"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 "stimme voll zu"
|
-999 "Fehlender Wert"
|
6
|
TS_04_NP
|
Theory Specific Epistemological Beliefs Questionnaire (TSEBQ, 2009). Simplicity. Item 4.
|
1 "stimme gar nicht zu"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 "stimme voll zu"
|
-999 "Fehlender Wert"
|
7
|
TO_04_NP
|
Theory Specific Epistemological Beliefs Questionnaire (TSEBQ, 2009). Source. Item 4.
|
1 "stimme gar nicht zu"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 "stimme voll zu"
|
-999 "Fehlender Wert"
|
8
|
TO_05_NP
|
Theory Specific Epistemological Beliefs Questionnaire (TSEBQ, 2009). Source. Item 5.
|
1 "stimme gar nicht zu"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 "stimme voll zu"
|
-999 "Fehlender Wert"
|
9
|
TJ_06_NP
|
Theory Specific Epistemological Beliefs Questionnaire (TSEBQ, 2009). Justification. Item 6.
|
1 "stimme gar nicht zu"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 "stimme voll zu"
|
-999 "Fehlender Wert"
|
10
|
TS_06_NP
|
Theory Specific Epistemological Beliefs Questionnaire (TSEBQ, 2009). Simplicity. Item 6.
|
1 "stimme gar nicht zu"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 "stimme voll zu"
|
-999 "Fehlender Wert"
|
Position | Name | Label | Valid Values | Missing Values |
---|---|---|---|---|
1
|
VIGNETTE
|
Bezeichnung der Vignette
|
Zeichenkette "Bezeichnung der Vignette"
|
-999 "Fehlender Wert"
|
2
|
LIX
|
Textlänge und Textkomplexität nach Björnson (1968)
|
51-74 "LIX-Wert"
|
-999 "Fehlender Wert"
|
3
|
WORTANZAHL
|
Wortanzahl der Vignette
|
130-210 "Wortanzahl"
|
-999 "Fehlender Wert"
|
4
|
FLESCH
|
Flesch-Index
|
18-60 "Flesch-Grad"
|
-999 "Fehlender Wert"
|
5
|
TEXT
|
Text der Vignette
|
Zeichenkette "Vignettentext"
|
-999 "Fehlender Wert"
|
Utilized Test Methods |
---|
Bråten, I., Gil, L., Strømsø, H.I., & Vidal-Abarca, E. (2009). Personal epistemology across cultures: Exploring Norwegian and Spanish university students' epistemic beliefs about climate change. Social Psychology of Education, 12, 529-560.
|
Krapp, A., Schiefele, U., Wild, K.-P. & Winteler, A. (1993). Der "Fragebogen zum Studieninteresse "(FSI). Diagnostica, 39, 335-351.
PSYNDEX
|
Krettenauer, T. (2005). Die Erfassung des Entwicklungsniveaus epistemologischer Überzeugungen und das Problem der Übertragbarkeit von Interviewverfahren in standardisierte Fragebogenmethoden. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 37 (2), 69-79.
PSYNDEX
|
Kunter, M., Leutner, D., Seidel, T. & Terhart, E. (2014): Bildungswissenschaftliches Wissen und der Erwerb professioneller Kompetenz in der Lehramtsausbildung (BilWiss). Version: 1. IQB - Institut zur Qualitätsentwicklung im Bildungswesen. Datensatz. http://doi.org/10.5159/IQB_BilWiss_v1
|
Lenhard, W. & Lenhard, A. (2014). Berechnung des Lesbarkeitsindex LIX nach Bjørnson. Bibergau: Psychometrica. Online verfügbar unter http://www.psychometrica.de/lix.html (Abgerufen am 11.02.2016)
|
Marcus, N., Cooper, M., & Sweller, J. (1996). Understanding Instructions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 49-63.
|
McAuley, E., Duncan, T. & Tammen, V. V. (1989). Psychometric properties of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory in a competitive sport setting: a confirmatory factor analysis. Research quarterly for exercise and sport, 60 (1), 48-58.
|
Muis, K. R., Psaradellis, C., Chevrier, M., Di Leo, I., & Lajoie, S. P. (2015). Learning by preparing to teach: Fostering self-regulatory processes and achievement during complex mathematics problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 1-19.
|
Paas, F.G.W.C. (1992). Training Strategies for Attaining Transfer of Problem-Solving Skill in Statistics: A Cognitive-Load Approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 429-434.
PSYNDEX
|
Schöll, P. (2015). Berechnung des Lesbarkeitsindex Flesch nach Rudolf Flesch. Online verfügbar unter http://fleschindex.de/ (Abgerufen am 11.02.2016)
|