Epistemological beliefs, interest, and gender as predictors of Internet-based learning activities

Computers in

Computers in Human Behavior 22 (2006) 1027–1042

www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Human Behavior

Epistemological beliefs, interest, and genderas predictors of Internet-based learning activities

Ivar Braten *, Helge I. Strømsø

Institute for Educational Research, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1092, Blindern, N-0317 Oslo, Norway

Available online 12 April 2004

Abstract

We examined the contribution of epistemological beliefs, individual interest, and gender to self-reports of Internet-based learning activities in a sample of 80 Norwegian student teachers in aninnovative pedagogical context with special emphasis on the use of information and communicationtechnologies. Epistemological beliefs and individual interest were measured in the autumn term ofthe first year of the teacher education program, and learning activities were measured in the autumnterm of the second year. The results indicated that epistemological beliefs about the speed of knowl-edge acquisition predicted Internet-search activities, with students who believed that learning occursquickly or not at all being less likely to realize that managing the wealth of information found on theInternet and critically evaluating Web-based resources is a difficult and often time-consuming task.In addition, students who held the naive epistemological belief that knowledge is given and stablewere less likely to engage in discussion and communication about subject content on the Internet,with such Internet-based communication also predicted by students’ interest in their field of study.Epistemological beliefs predicting Internet-communication activities were also found to predict self-reported use of strategies when learning from conventional printed texts. Finally, males reportedhigher levels of participation in Internet-based communication activities than females, and femalesreported higher levels of strategy use when learning from conventional printed texts than males.� 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Epistemological beliefs; Individual interest; Gender; Learning with Internet technologies

0747-5632/$ - see front matter � 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.03.026

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +47 22 85 52 82; fax: +47 22 85 42 50.E-mail address: [email protected] (I. Braten).

mailto:[email protected]

1028 I. Braten, H.I. Strømsø / Computers in Human Behavior 22 (2006) 1027–1042

1. Introduction

As the role of Internet technologies in education becomes more prominent, concomi-tant changes in students’ learning activities may be observed. In particular, the Internetaffords opportunities for rapidly accessing vast amounts of information and for effectivelysharing this information with others. Such opportunities have received much applausefrom educationalists in recent years, and they have certainly been embraced by policy-makers in informational societies giving emphasis to global competition and informationeconomics (see, e.g., Dillon & Gabbard, 1998; Leu, 2000). Among the major reasons forregarding Internet use as an advance in educational technology is the claim that it can pro-mote students’ knowledge construction because complex information is presented in a for-mat that allows for multiple perspectives and stresses the web-like nature of knowledge, aform of representation which is considered to be in accordance with the workings of thehuman mind (Delany & Gilbert, 1991; Jacobson & Spiro, 1995). Another important rea-son for advocating pedagogical use of the Internet is related to its potential influence onstudent motivation (Kamil, Intrator, & Kim, 2000; Leu, 2000). Even though much remainsto be known about the motivational consequences of using hypermedia, such as the Inter-net, it has been suggested that the increased student control over learning afforded by thistechnology may promote intrinsic motivation and interest (Becker & Dwyer, 1994). Moregenerally, Lepper and associates (Lepper & Chabay, 1985; Lepper & Malone, 1987) havepresented findings indicating that computer-based education may promote intrinsic moti-vation when it gives students opportunities to customize their work and allows for control,curiosity, and challenge during task performance.

At the same time, the claims that the use of Internet technologies in education has reallyimproved student learning and motivation are debatable. For example, Dillon and Gab-bard (1998) concluded their review of the effects of hypermedia usage on learning out-comes that ‘‘the benefits gained from the use of hypermedia technology in learningscenarios appear to be very limited and not in keeping with the generally euphoric reactionto this technology in the professional arena’’ (p. 345). Specifically, Dillon and Gabbard(1998) did not find much evidence in support of hypermedia applications with the goalof improving learner comprehension. In fact, the great freedom of choice inherent in Inter-net use may even lead to poorer learner comprehension because students are cognitivelyoverwhelmed by trivia and seductive details that distract from important informationand impede knowledge construction (Meyer & Rose, 1998). In addition, comprehensionmay be more difficult because it demands too much of learners in terms of critical evalu-ation of Internet-based resources. On open, global information networks anyone maypublish anything, and the difficult task of controlling the accuracy and relevance of infor-mation, traditionally carried out by editors of publication companies, is now transferred tothe students themselves (Leu, 2000; Spires & Estes, 2002). This task may be particularlydifficult for students because they often develop a blind trust in the textbooks that theyuse in their classrooms (e.g., Paxton, 1999; Rouet, Britt, Mason, & Perfetti, 1996; Simpson& Nist, 2002).

Presumably, the question of whether Internet technologies in education can really ‘‘deli-ver the goods’’ (Braten, Strømsø, & Olaussen, 2003) must be related to the question ofhow different learners react to this environment. Thus, the main question is not whetherInternet-based learning environments are good for learners or not, but rather what learnercharacteristics are required in those environments (cf. Hartley & Bendixen, 2001).

I. Braten, H.I. Strømsø / Computers in Human Behavior 22 (2006) 1027–1042 1029

It has been suggested that the flexibility of Internet and hypermedia technology makesit well suited to accomodate individual differences among learners (Leu, 2000). That is,because such technologies combine multiple media forms and allow for learner controlover information resources, individual students may use the particular media forms andinformation resources that optimize comprehension and learning (Hillinger & Leu,1994). At the same time, however, it has been suggested that some individual characteris-tics are more desirable than others if students are to succeed within Web-based learningenvironments (Hartley & Bendixen, 2001). This latter view was supported by the Dillonand Gabbard (1998) review, indicating that both student ability and learning style mayaffect learning outcome. First, research on ability differences indicates that high ability stu-dents are more likely than lower ability students to take advantage of hypermedia andavoid being overwhelmed by the amount of learner control it affords (e.g., Recker & Pir-olli, 1995; Repman, Willer, & Lan, 1993). Second, some students may have learning styles(i.e., distinct approaches to learning) that make them better equipped to navigate globalinformation networks in effective and insightful ways. Thus, it has been suggested thatfield-independent learners may benefit more from hypermedia technologies than field-dependent learners (Jonassen & Wang, 1993), that deep processors may exploit such tech-nologies better than surface processors (Beishuizen, Stoutjesdijk, & van Putten, 1994), andthat active learners may outperform passive learners in hypermedia environments (Shute,1993).

Recently, Hartley and Bendixen (2001) argued that students’ epistemological beliefsseem particularly relevant to learning in hypermedia environments. Epistemologicalbeliefs concern students’ theories about the nature of knowledge, knowing, and knowl-edge acquisition (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997; Schommer-Aikins, 2002). According to Schom-mer (1990), personal epistemology may be described as a system of more or lessindependent beliefs, and she developed a 63-item questionnaire to examine this system.Factor analyses reported by Schommer and associates (e.g., Schommer, 1990; Schommer,Crouse, & Rhodes, 1992) have consistently yielded four factors, which stated from anaive perspective, are: Simple Knowledge (ranging from the belief that knowledge is bestcharacterized as isolated bits and pieces to the belief that knowledge is best characterizedas highly interrelated concepts), Certain Knowledge (ranging from the belief that knowl-edge is absolute and unchanging to the belief that knowledge is tentative and evolving),Fixed Ability (ranging from the belief that ability to learn is given at birth to the beliefthat ability to learn can be increased), and Quick Learning (ranging from the belief thatlearning takes place quickly or not at all to the belief that learning is gradual). There isevidence that there are negative relations between naive epistemological beliefs and stu-dents’ use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies (Braten & Strømsø, in press; Garrett-Ingram, 1997; Rozendaal, de Brabander, & Minnaert, 2001), as well as between naiveepistemological beliefs and strategic text processing and comprehension in traditionalprint environments (Kardash & Howell, 2000; Schommer, 1990; Schommer et al.,1992; Schommer & Walker, 1995; Schraw, Bendixen, & Dunkle, 2002). For example,Schommer (1990) initially found that for students who read a passage in which the con-cluding paragraph was removed, belief in quick learning was related to the writing ofoversimplified conclusions, poor performance on a comprehension test, and overconfi-dence in test performance.

According to Hartley and Bendixen (2001), relationships established between epistemo-logical beliefs and learning with traditional instructional materials are also likely to be


found in computer-based learning environments. In these new environments, students typ-ically have more control over instruction, and they often search and evaluate informationat their own discretion, allowing for individual differences to shape how the technology isused. For example, the belief in quick learning involves that more time spent on learningand understanding may be viewed as an indication of one’s inability to learn. As a conse-quence, students may not waste time to search for additional information or critically eval-uate the information they have located. Similarly, students who believe that knowledge isgiven and stable may be less likely to use Internet technologies to discuss and co-constructknowledge with others because mutual negotiations and perspective taking may be viewedas unproductive, confusing, and even harmful to learning and understanding. Limited evi-dence also suggests that naive epistemological beliefs may impede learning with hyperme-dia technologies. Specifically, Jacobson and Spiro (1995) found that students who believedin simple knowledge had problems handling the nonlinear and multidimensional nature ofan ill-defined hypertext system. It seems to be a clear need, however, to examine the rela-tionship between students’ epistemological beliefs and their Web-based learning activitiesfurther. In the present research, we therefore related measures of different epistemologicalbeliefs to measures of students’ use of informational Internet resources and their use of theInternet for communication and discussion about subject content.

As mentioned above, it has been suggested that the use of hypermedia technologies maypromote students’ intrinsic motivation and interest as well. However, it might also be thecase that uses of the Web for learning require such individual characteristics at least asmuch as they foster them. Contemporary interest research typically distinguishes betweensituational interest and individual interest. While situational interest refers to those tem-porary interests that are triggered by particular subject content or events, individual inter-est refers to an enduring and deepening relation of an individual to particular subjectcontent, which is associated with increasing value, knowledge, and positive feelings(e.g., Hidi, 2001; Renninger, 2000; Schiefele, 1998). It is well documented that well-devel-oped individual interest in an area facilitates learning and comprehension (Hidi, 2001).For example, students reading about personally interesting topics have been shown tolearn more from text (Schiefele, 1999), and there is also some indication that individualinterest affects the quality of text-based learning by leading to more elaborate and deepertext processing (Krapp, 1999; Schiefele, 1998, 1999). According to Renninger (2000) andRenninger and Hidi (2002), individual interest enables a person to persist in spite of frus-tration and feelings of failure, to take risks, and to work resourcefully to solve difficultiesand problems that might arise. Thus, students with well-developed individual interest typ-ically set challenges for themselves ‘‘that lead them to stretch their understanding or per-severe through frustration to new understanding’’ (Renninger & Hidi, 2002, p. 187), bothalone and by seeking cooperation with others who may scaffold their challenge seekingand knowledge construction. In addition, individual interest probably affects attentionalprocesses that allow for more focused, faster, and effective information processing (Hidi,2001).

In relation to learning with hypermedia technologies, several authors have suggestedthat individual differences in motivation may influence to what extent learners can benefitfrom the use of such tools (Hartley & Bendixen, 2001; Tergan, 1997; van Oostendorp & deMul, 1996). For example, van Oostendorp and de Mul (1996) suggested that students mayneed more cognitive energy to comprehend as they actively navigate information networksin idiosyncratic ways and engage in personal knowledge construction. In particular,


students’ personal interest for subject content and study activities may play an importantrole for their ability and willingness to cope with the many attentional demands and theinevitable frustration that arise when working in new technological environments thatconstantly challenge their current strategies and understanding. Students’ ability and will-ingness to manage the wealth of information found on the Internet may be facilitated byattentional processes generated by well-developed individual interest. Moreover, studentswith well-developed individual interest may be less dependent on direct instruction fromothers than students with less developed interest and, thus, better equipped to takeadvantage of the learner control afforded by Internet technologies. Still, students withwell-developed individual interest may be more motivated to use the new technologiesto discuss their work with others who can support them in their efforts to learn andcomprehend subject content. However, as Hartley and Bendixen (2001) pointed out, thenotion that Web learning is highly dependent on motivation needs more empirical back-ing. It is therefore an important purpose of the present research to examine the importanceof students’ individual interest for their field of study to Internet-based learning activities.

Another individual difference factor that should be explored in relation to Internet-based learning activities is gender. According to Leu (2000), gender differences in theuse of newer networked technologies are an increasingly important area of exploration.Earlier research on computer use in general indicated that males were more likely to bothuse and have favorable attitudes towards computers than females, with this schismreferred to as the ‘‘digital gender divide’’ (Cooper & Weaver, 2003). Explanations forgender differences in computer use and attitudes have included computer anxiety, sex rolestereotypes, the social context of the computing environment, and children’s computergames (e.g., Cooper & Weaver, 2003; Schumacher & Morahan-Martin, 2001). Moreover,students’ attitudes towards computers have been found to predict their Internet experi-ences and skills (Schumacher & Morahan-Martin, 2001).

Work on Internet use in particular started to explore gender differences in the mid-1990s, when data from the USA showed that males reported more experience and skillin using the Internet than females, and also had more positive attitudes towards Internettechnologies (Ono & Zavodny, 2003; Schumacher & Morahan-Martin, 2001). By 2000, theearlier gender difference in using the Internet at all seemed to have disappeared, but males,once online, seemed to remain more frequent and more intense users of the Internet (Ono& Zavodny, 2003). In Norway, a gender gap in being online still seem to exist. In 2003,79% of the male population, aged 13 or more, had access to the Internet, while the corre-sponding percentage for females was 70. In both groups, the proportion of people withaccess to the Internet had doubled over a five-year period, but the difference betweenthe groups was approximately the same (TNS Gallup, 2003).

Possibly, gender differences in Internet use, skills, and attitudes will not be presentamong the most active Internet users, that is, young people in higher education (TNS Gal-lup, 2003). Recently Lycke, Strømsø, and Grøttum (2002) examined the Internet use ofNorwegian medical students, finding no significant differences between males and femaleswith respect to how often they used a computer or their perceived self-efficacy regardingelementary Internet functions (e.g., starting the Web-browser, connecting to Web-pages,or using e-mail). However, significant differences in favor of male students were observedwith respect to self-efficacy regarding more advanced Internet functions (e.g., selecting theright search term, downloading Web-based material, or setting up and maintaining ahomepage). In addition, Lycke et al. (2002) found that male students tended to use specific


Internet-based facilities such as e-shopping and chat channels more frequently than femalestudents. Thus, even though the gender gap in being online may well be closed by now, atleast in higher education, gender differences may persist regarding the sophistication, fre-quency, and diversity of Internet use (see also, Cooper & Weaver, 2003; Ono & Zavodny,2003).

It has been suggested that females may be more likely to consider the Internet a tool forperforming useful activities than a technology to be mastered (Singh, 2001). For example,females have been found to express even more favorable attitudes than males towardscommunication tools such as e-mail systems (Allen, 1995), and females have also beenfound to be as experienced and skilled as males in using e-mail (Schumacher & Mora-han-Martin, 2001). Because females may hold less fascination and enthusiasm for cuttingedge technology per se, they might also be expected to use Internet-based technologies forlearning only to the extent that they consider them useful and appropriate study tools.

Of course, not all tasks within Internet technologies are alike. While some tasks primar-ily involve locating and evaluating the appropriateness of information, others involve thesharing and discussion of information with others. Possibly, the importance of individualdifferences among learners may be different for different tasks (Leu, 2000). For example,Hillinger and Leu (1994) found that individual differences in prior knowledge may be lessimportant in more closed search tasks than in open tasks within hypermedia. However,additional work is also needed to explore the importance of individual differences for dif-ferent aspects of hypermedia learning. In the present research, we specifically exploredwhether individual differences with respect to epistemological beliefs, interest, and genderwere differentially important for students’ use of the Internet to search for relevant infor-mation and to discuss subject content with others.

Finally, it seems important to examine whether the role of epistemological beliefs,individual interest, and gender will differ between learning with new technological toolsand learning with more traditional instructional materials. According to Hartley andBendixen (2001), the importance of epistemological beliefs might be greater in new tech-nological learning environments. However, it is generally not clear whether individualdifferences found to be important when learning from conventional text will servesimilar functions within Web-based reading environments (Spires & Estes, 2002). Onepossibility is that their importance is reduced because new forms of learner characteris-tics are required for Web-based learning and comprehension. Another possibility is thatthey will play similar roles, and a third one that relationships found between individualdifference variables and learning from conventional text become more pronounced inWeb-based learning environments. In the present research, we included a measure ofstrategic activity when learning from conventional text to compare the predictabilityof epistemological beliefs, individual interest, and gender for traditional and Web-basedlearning activities.

Given this theoretical orientation, we set out to answer the following three questions inour investigation: First, do students’ epistemological beliefs, individual interest for theirfield of study, and gender, respectively, predict their ability to identify relevant Internetresources during studying? Second, do students’ epistemological beliefs, individual inter-est, and gender predict their participation in Internet-based communication and discussionabout subject content? Third, does the predictability of epistemological beliefs, individualinterest, and gender differ for conventional-text-based learning activities and Internet-based learning activities?


2. Method

2.1. Participants and academic context

The sample consisted of 80 students at a college in south-east Norway, who were in thefirst year of their four-year teacher education when the study started. The sample included51 females and 29 males, and the students ranged in age from 19 to 46 years, with an over-all mean age of 24.4 (SD = 6.4) at the outset of the study. The same 80 students partici-pated in the first and the second year, and the individual responses of each participantin year 1 were related to the individual responses of each participant in year 2.

The participants were in a teacher education program which gave much emphasis toinnovative pedagogical approaches involving problem-based learning and interdisciplin-ary project work. There was not much focus on evaluation in the program, and gradedexaminations were few and far between. During the first year, when the student teachersstudied subjects such as mathematics, education, and Norwegian, they had to take onlythree graded examinations, including two traditional school tests and one portfolio-basedassessment. In addition to summative portfolio-based assessment, formative process eval-uation was much used in the program. During the second year, when they attendedcourses in Norwegian, education, religion, and aesthetic subjects, the student teacherstook five examinations, including three traditional school tests, one portfolio-based assess-ment, and one project-based group assessment. In regard to instructional practice, theteacher education program concentrated on student-activating learning methods and afull-scale integration of information and communications (ICT) technology into the dailystudy work, with special emphasis given to computer-supported collaborative learning.During both the first and the second year, the core activity in the program consisted ofstudent-regulated, problem-based work in small groups (6–8 students) within the frame-work of interdisciplinary projects, with ICT used as an important tool for facilitating stu-dents’ co-construction and integration of knowledge. For a detailed description andevaluation of this teacher education program, see Braten et al. (2003).

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. Epistemological beliefs

Our measures of epistemological beliefs were adapted from the Schommer Epistemo-logical Questionnaire (SEQ) (Schommer, 1990). The SEQ is composed of 63 statementsabout knowledge and knowledge acquisition that students are asked to rate on a 5-pointLikert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). In this study, we measured twodimensions of epistemological beliefs that have previously been identified in factor analysisof the Norwegian version of the SEQ (Braten & Strømsø, in press). The measure of stu-dents’ beliefs about the speed of knowledge acquisition included nine items focused onthe time it takes for learning to occur. High scores on this scale are supposed to representthe belief that learning occurs quickly or not at all, while low scores represent the beliefthat learning is a gradual process requiring both time and effort (sample item: If youare ever going to be able to understand something, it will make sense to you the first timeyou hear it). The measure of students’ beliefs about knowledge construction and modifica-tion consisted of seven items dealing with the idea that knowledge is constructed andmodified through the identification of new ideas, the use of learning-to-learn skills, the


integration of information from multiple sources, critical processing, and the recognitionthat existing knowledge is only tentative. High scores on this measure are supposed to rep-resent the view that knowledge is given and stable, while low scores represent the view thatknowledge is actively constructed and constantly evolving (sample item: Today’s facts maybe tomorrow’s fiction).

While the scale that we used to assess students’ beliefs about speed of knowledge acqui-sition corresponded to a dimension of personal epistemology also identified in Schom-mer’s (1990; Schommer et al., 1992) factor-analytic research, our measure of beliefsabout knowledge construction and modification corresponded to a dimension identifiedin a recent factor-analytic study of the SEQ by Wood and Kardash (2002).

In the present study, we estimated measurement reliability by computing Cronbach’scoefficient a. Coefficient a determines the internal consistency of a multiple item scale,based on the mean correlation of each item in the scale with every other item. Thus, Cron-bach’s a provides an estimate of reliability that can be obtained from only one administra-tion of a measure (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000). The reliability (Cronbach a) of our measure ofbeliefs about the speed of knowledge acquisition was 0.74. For the measure of beliefsabout knowledge construction and modification the reliability estimate was 0.73.

2.2.2. Individual interest

To measure students’ individual interest in their field of study, we developed a Norwe-gian version of the Study Interest Questionnaire (SIQ) (Schiefele, Krapp, Wild, & Wint-eler, 1993). This measure was composed of 18 items focused on students’ enjoymentand valuing of study activities and subjects for their own sake (sample item: After a longweekend or vacation I look forward to starting on the study again). The students ratedeach item on a 4-point scale ranging from not at all true of me (1) to very true of me

(4). Schiefele et al. (1993) reported several types of validity data for the SIQ, indicatingthat this is a sufficiently valid instrument for measuring study interest. In the presentresearch, we obtained the reliability estimate (Cronbach’s a) of 0.82 for the SIQ.

2.2.3. Internet-based learning activities

To assess students’ learning activities when performing search tasks on the Internet, weasked them to rate six statements pertaining to identification of relevant information andevaluation of the appropriateness of information (sample items: When I am going to usethe Internet in my studies, I tend to spend time on materials that are not relevant to what Iam studying; When I find information on the Internet that is relevant to what I am study-ing, it is often hard to assess the quality of it). Participants indicated their response to eachitem on a 1 (not at all typical of me) to 5 (very typical of me) scale, and the reliability esti-mate (Cronbach’s a) for this Internet-search measure was 0.80.

Additionally, we assessed students’ reported use of the Internet for communication anddiscussion about subject content with a two-item Internet-communication measure (I usethe Internet to communicate with other students about the subjects I study; I participate indiscussions on the Internet about what I am studying). Again, participants rated thedegree to which each item applied to them on a 1 (not at all typical of me) to 5 (very typical

of me) scale. The reliability (Cronbach’s a) for this measure was 0.74.When we performed a principal-components factor analysis with oblique rotation, the

eight items concerning Internet-based learning activities loaded on separate factors corre-sponding to our two measures. That is, each item loaded on its designated factor, all items


loaded higher than 0.60 on their primary factor, and the minimum difference between anyprimary and secondary loading was 0.26. The two factors – Internet search (eigenvalue =3.09) and Internet communication (eigenvalue = 1.81) – accounted for 61.3% of the totalvariance.

2.2.4. Text-processing strategies

To assess students’ reported use of strategies when learning from conventional printedstudy materials, such as textbooks, we adapted 20 items from a Norwegian version of theLearning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI) (Weinstein, Palmer, & Schulte, 1987).The entire LASSI has 77 items divided into 10 subscales that focus on ‘‘both covert andovert thoughts and behaviors that relate to successful learning’’ (Weinstein, 1987). In thisstudy, we used only items belonging to five of the subscales. Specifically, we used six itemsfrom the Information Processing scale (sample item: I try to think through a topic anddecide what I am supposed to learn from it rather than just read it over when studying),six items from the Study Aids scale (sample item: I use special study helps, such as italicsand headings, that are in my textbook), three items from the Self-Testing scale (sampleitem: I stop periodically while reading and mentally go over or review what was said),three items from the Test Strategies scale (sample item: I am unable to summarize whatI have just read in a textbook), and two items from the Selecting Main Ideas scale (sampleitem: It is hard for me to decide what is important to underline in a text). Participants indi-cated their response to each item on a 1 (not at all typical of me) to 5 (very typical of me)scale.

The first author selected the 20 items from the 77-item inventory because those items mostexplicitly addressed strategies for learning from text. When two other reading researcherswere asked to examine the 77-item inventory and independently select the 20 items thatseemed most relevant for assessing text-processing strategies, average agreement betweenthe two other researchers and the first author on the 20 items was 77.5%. The internalconsistency reliability (Cronbach’s a) for our 20-item measure of text-processing strategieswas 0.78.

2.3. Procedure

The measures of epistemological beliefs and individual interest were group-adminis-tered to the participants in the autumn term (November) of their first year of study,and the measures of Internet-based learning activities and text-processing strategies weregroup-administered in the autumn term (November) of the second year. In the first year,the order of administration varied at random for the measures of epistemological beliefsand individual interest. In the second year, the six items of the Internet-search measure,the two items of the Internet-communication measure, and the 20 items of the text-processing measure appeared in mixed order in the same inventory. Trained research assis-tants collected the data during large regular lectures intended for all student teachers at thesame level of study. The students were informed that their participation was entirelyvoluntary and assured that the information they provided would be confidential.

The original scales in English and German (SIQ) were translated into Norwegian by agroup of five educational psychology researchers who were all proficient in both Englishand German in addition to Norwegian. All the items were translated so that their essentialmeanings were retained and so that they were easy to understand in the context of


Norwegian students. The five researchers worked together on the translations with dis-agreements solved through group discussion.

3. Results

The means and SDs for all measures, by gender as well as for the total sample, arereported in Table 1. In addition, the sample size for each variable is reported in Table 1.

Table 2 presents zero-order intercorrelations between the measures, with gender(males = 1, females = 2) also included in the correlation matrix.

While the two measures of epistemological beliefs were positively correlated with eachothers (r = 0.27), both were negatively related to individual interest (r’s = �0.29 and�0.23). Moreover, beliefs about the speed of knowledge acquisition were positively relatedto Internet-search activities (r = 0.31) and negatively related to text-processing strategies(r = �0.25), and beliefs about knowledge construction and modification were negativelyrelated to both Internet-communication activities (r = �0.41) and text-processing strate-gies (r = �0.45). Individual interest was negatively related to Internet-search activities(r = �0.24) but positively related to Internet-communication activities (r = 0.30) andtext-processing strategies (r = 0.35). While the zero-order correlations generally showedthe expected relations between epistemological beliefs, individual interest, Internet-communication, and text-processing strategies, we were somewhat surprised that Internetsearch was positively related to beliefs about speed of knowledge acquisition and nega-tively related to individual interest. Thus, students who reportedly had no problems iden-tifying relevant information on the Internet and assessing the quality of that informationalso tended to hold the naive epistemological belief that learning occurs quickly or not atall and to be less interested in their field of study. We will return to this apparently para-

Table 1Means and SDs for all variables by gender

Males Females Total sample

N M SD N M SD N M SD

Speed of knowledge acquisition 29 2.06 0.58 51 1.92 0.54 80 1.97 0.56Knowledge construction and modification 29 2.36 0.67 51 2.47 0.56 80 2.43 0.60Individual interest 29 2.82 0.35 51 3.12 0.39 80 3.01 0.40Internet search 28 3.23 0.77 50 2.86 0.65 78 2.99 0.71Internet-communication 28 2.70 0.98 50 2.41 1.05 78 2.51 1.03Text-processing strategies 27 3.36 0.38 48 3.61 0.41 75 3.52 0.41

Table 2Zero-order correlations for all variables

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Gender –2. Speed of knowledge acquisition �0.12 –3. Knowledge construction and modification 0.08 0.27* –4. Individual interest 0.37** �0.29** �0.23* –5. Internet search �0.25* 0.31** 0.14 �0.24* –6. Internet-communication �0.13 0.05 �0.41*** 0.30** 0.01 –7. Text-processing strategies 0.30** �0.25* �0.45*** 0.35** �0.06 0.27* –

Note. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.


doxical finding in the discussion. Finally, gender was negatively related to Internet search(r = �0.25), indicating that males reported more skill in performing search tasks thanfemales, and positively related to text-processing strategies (r = 0.30), indicating thatfemales reported higher levels of strategy use than males.

We next computed a set of regression equations with students’ reported Internet-searchactivities, Internet-communication activities, and text-processing strategies the second yearas outcome measures. The predictors for each of these equations were the two first-yearepistemological belief measures and the individual interest measure. In addition, thedichotomous variable of gender was included for a total of four predictors for each equa-tion. The results of the multiple regression analyses are shown in Table 3.

The four predictors together explained a significant amount of variance in students’report of Internet-search activities, F(4,73) = 3.16, p < 0.05, R2 = 0.15. Furthermore,the regression of the Internet-search measure indicated that beliefs about the speed ofknowledge acquisition was a significant positive predictor (b = 0.24, p < 0.05), with stu-dents who believed in quick learning more likely to report that they proficiently performedsearch tasks on the Internet.

The four predictors together also explained a significant amount of the variance instudents’ reported use of the Internet for communication and discussion about subjectcontent, F(4, 73) = 7.49, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.29. Beliefs about knowledge construction andmodification was a negative (b = �0.35, p = 0.001) and individual interest a positive(b = 0.37, p = 0.002) predictor of Internet-communication. Thus, students who held naiveepistemological beliefs about the nature of knowledge were reportedly less likely to use theInternet for study-related communication purposes, while students who reported stronginterest in their field of study were reportedly more likely to use the Internet in such away. In addition, gender was a negative predictor of Internet-communication(b = �0.24, p < 0.05), with males reportedly more likely to use the Internet to discuss sub-ject content than females.

Finally, the four predictors jointly explained a significant portion of the variance in stu-dents’ reported use of text-processing strategies, F(4,70) = 9.20, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.35. Thestrongest predictor of text-processing strategies was students’ beliefs about knowledgeconstruction and modification (b = �0.43, p < 0.001), with students holding the naivebelief that knowledge is something given and stable reporting lower levels of strategyuse. In addition, gender was a significant predictor (b = 0.27, p = 0.015), with femalesreportedly using text-processing strategies more than males.

Table 3Standardized regression coefficients for equations predicting Internet-search, Internet-communication, and text-processing strategies

Predictor Internet-search Internet-communication Text-processingstrategies

Gender �0.17 �0.24* 0.27*

Speed of knowledge acquisition 0.24* 0.18 �0.10Knowledge construction and

modification0.08 �0.35** �0.43***

Individual interest �0.08 0.37** 0.13R-squared 0.15* 0.29*** 0.35***

Note. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.


4. Discussion

The present research adds to our understanding about the role of individual character-istics in Internet-based learning activities by providing new evidence regarding the contri-bution of students’ epistemological beliefs and individual interest to their self-report ofinformation search and online discussion of subject content.

First, the results indicate that students’ beliefs about the speed of knowledge acquisitionmay have implications for their performance of search tasks on the Internet. Specifically,students who believed that learning occurs quickly or not at all were more likely to con-sider information search and evaluation unproblematic than student who believed learningto be a gradual process requiring both time and effort. Presumably, when students believethat more time and effort do not coincide with more learning, they may consider it a wasteof time to search for additional information and dwell unnecessarily on the informationthey have located. However, managing the wealth of information found on the Internetand critically evaluating Web-based resources is not quickly or easily done (Rouet, Jegou,Metta, & Limam, 2003). That students who believe in quick learning do not seem to realizethe great challenge involved in this enterprise may actually impede their developmenttoward becoming efficient searchers in complex computerized information systems.

Second, the results indicate that students’ beliefs about knowledge construction andmodification may play an important role for their participation in online communicationand discussion about subject content. Specifically, it was found that students who con-ceived of knowledge as given and stable were less likely to take advantage of the oppor-tunity for Internet-mediated communication offered by the ICT environment in whichthey studied. The reason for this might be that students who believe in given and stableknowledge do not see the point of participating in mutual negotiations, often involvingmultiple conflicting interpretations, about the meaning of subject content. In addition, stu-dents’ interest in their field of study seemed to play an important role for their use of theInternet for subject-related communication purposes, with students reporting higher levelsof interest in the first year also reporting more Internet-communication activities in thesecond year. In accordance with interest theory (e.g., Renninger & Hidi, 2002), studentswith well-developed individual interest may thus take more advantage of Internet toolsto cooperate with others who can scaffold their knowledge construction. The fact thatother epistemological beliefs were related to engagement in Internet-communication activ-ities than to Internet-search activities seems to confirm that individual differences amonglearners may interact with the nature of the task within Internet technologies (cf. Leu,2000).

Third, beliefs about knowledge construction and modification also seemed to play animportant role for students’ reported use of text-processing strategies. As could beexpected, students holding the naive belief that knowledge is given and stable also report-edly used such strategies less to actively construct knowledge from texts. At least in termsof epistemological impact factors, text processing in conventional print environments thusseems to have more in common with Internet-communication activities than with Internet-search activities. This is in accordance with Rouet (2003), who has argued that informa-tion search appears to be a skill distinct from reading and text comprehension. Asmentioned earlier, interest research (e.g., Krapp, 1999; Schiefele, 1998, 1999) has linkedindividual interest to the use of text-processing strategies. The finding that individual inter-est did not contribute significantly to text-processing strategies in this regression analysis,


even though it had a significant positive zero-order correlation with strategy use, may bedue to its correlation with gender. Thus, some of the variance that individual interestshared with text-processing strategies may already have been accounted for by the gendervariable.

Finally, gender predicted both Internet-communication activities and text-processingstrategies, with males being more likely to report participation in Internet-based communi-cation and females being more likely to report use of text-processing strategies. Priorresearch with Norwegian post-secondary students (Braten & Olaussen, 1998) has alsoshown that female students report using strategies more than male students in traditionalprint environments. However, research concerning the computer culture in general has sug-gested that it may be a greater challenge for female than for male students to becomeengaged with information and communication technologies (Leu, 2000). At the same time,it has been suggested that participation in computer-based collaborative learning activities(e.g., e-mail exchanges, online discussions, or electronic conferences) may be especiallyinviting to females (e.g., Eldred & Hawisher, 1995). The present research suggests, however,that female students may be less likely than males even to take advantage of the opportu-nities for social interaction offered by newer networked technologies such as the Internet.

One limitation of the present research is that our correlational data do not allow us todraw conclusions regarding causality. Despite the temporal sequencing of our assessmentof learner characteristics and reported learning activities, the results do not preclude thepossibility of a reciprocal relationship between epistemological beliefs and individual inter-est on the one hand and learning activities on the other. In this study, we simply testedepistemological beliefs and individual interest as contributors to self-reports of learningactivities and observed relationships consistent with the assumption that such individualdifference variables may be causal predictors of learning activities. However, definite cau-sal statements regarding those relationships must await further work.

In addition, individual characteristics other than epistemological beliefs, individualinterest, and gender should be studied in relationship with Internet-based learning activi-ties. For example, other characteristics that need careful consideration include topicknowledge, perceived self-efficacy, self-regulatory skills, and familiarity with computers,as well as socioeconomic or sociocultural background variables such as parents’ educationor occupation (cf. Braten et al., 2003; Hartley & Bendixen, 2001; Murphy, Long, Holleran,& Esterly, 2003). The focus on such individual difference variables might complementrather than contradict the findings reported in this study, and we see it as a special chal-lenge for future research in this area to try to integrate different learner characteristics thatpotentially impact activity in Internet-based learning environments.

The results of this study suggest that some students may be better equipped to learnwithin Internet technologies than others. Specifically, it appears to be a challenge to thosewho design and implement ICT-based learning environments to adapt the technologies orprovide the necessary support for students with less than optimal characteristics in termsof personal epistemology and interest. However, in addition to scaffolding the Internet-based learning activities of such students by trying to teach them strategies for Internetsearch and communication, it may be necessary to link those strategies with more sophis-ticated personal theories about knowledge and knowledge acquisition. It may thus be animportant task for educators to try to nudge some students into thinking and reflectingabout personal theories and how those theories may relate to online information process-ing and learning.


References

Allen, B. J. (1995). Gender and computer-mediated communication. Sex Roles, 32, 557–563.Becker, D. A., & Dwyer, M. M. (1994). Using hypermedia to provide learner control. Journal of Educational

Multimedia and Hypermedia, 3, 155–172.Beishuizen, J., Stoutjesdijk, E., & van Putten, K. (1994). Studying textbooks: Effects of learning styles, study task,

and instruction. Learning and Instruction, 4, 151–174.Braten, I., & Olaussen, B. S. (1998). The learning and study strategies of Norwegian first-year college students.

Learning and Individual Differences, 10, 309–327.Braten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (in press). The relationship between epistemological beliefs, implicit theories of

intelligence, and self-regulated learning among Norwegian post-secondary students. British Journal of

Educational Psychology.Braten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Olaussen, B. S. (2003). Self-regulated learning and the use of information and

communications technology in Norwegian teacher education. In D. McInerney & S. Van Etten (Eds.),Research on sociocultural influences on motivation and learning: Sociocultural influences and teacher education

programs (Vol. III, pp. 199–221). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Cooper, J., & Weaver, K. D. (2003). Gender and computers: Understanding the digital divide. Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.Delany, P., & Gilbert, S. (1991). Hypercard stacks for Fielding’s Joseph Andrews: Issues of design and content. In

P. Delany & G. Landow (Eds.), Hypermedia and literary studies (pp. 287–298). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Dillon, A., & Gabbard, R. (1998). Hypermedia as an educational technology: A review of the quantitative

research literature on learner comprehension, control, and style. Review of Educational Research, 68, 322–349.Eldred, J. C., & Hawisher, G. E. (1995). Researching electronic networks. Written Communication, 12, 330–359.Garrett-Ingram, C. (1997). Something to believe in: The relationship between epistemological beliefs and study

strategies. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.Hartley, K., & Bendixen, L. D. (2001). Educational research in the Internet age: Examining the role of individual

characteristics. Educational Researcher, 30(9), 22–26.Hidi, S. (2001). Interest, reading, and learning: Theoretical and practical considerations. Educational Psychology

Review, 13, 191–209.Hillinger, M., & Leu, D. J. (1994). Guiding instruction in hypermedia. In Proceedings of the human factors and

ergonomics society’s 38th annual meeting (pp. 266–270).Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and

knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 88–140.Jacobson, M. J., & Spiro, R. J. (1995). Hypertext learning environments, cognitive flexibility, and the transfer of

complex knowledge: An empirical investigation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12, 301–333.Jonassen, D., & Wang, S. (1993). Acquiring structural knowledge from semantically structured hypertext. Journal

of Computer-Based Instruction, 20, 1–8.Kamil, M. L., Intrator, S. M., & Kim, H. S. (2000). The effects of other technologies on literacy and literacy

learning. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research

(Vol. III, pp. 771–788). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Kardash, C. M., & Howell, K. L. (2000). Effects of epistemological beliefs and topic-specific beliefs on

undergraduates’ cognitive and strategic processing of dual-positional text. Journal of Educational Psychology,

92, 524–535.Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. (2000). Foundations of behavioral research. Forth Worth, TX: Harcourt College

Publishers.Krapp, A. (1999). Interest, motivation, and learning: An educational-psychological perspective. European Journal

of Psychology of Education, 14, 23–40.Lepper, M., & Chabay, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and instruction: Conflicting views on the role of

motivational processes in computer-based education. Educational Psychologist, 20, 217–230.Lepper, M. R., & Malone, T. (1987). Intrinsic motivation and instructional effectiveness in computer-based

education. In R. E. Snow & M. J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, learning, and instruction (Vol. 3, pp. 255–296).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Leu, D. J. (2000). Literacy and technology: Deictic consequences for literacy education in an information age. InM. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp.743–770). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.


Lycke, K. H., Strømsø, H. I., & Grøttum, P. (2002). PBL goes ICT: Problem-based learning in face-to-face anddistributed groups in medical education at the University of Oslo. Oslo: Institute for Educational Research,University of Oslo.

Meyer, A., & Rose, D. H. (1998). Learning to read in a computer age. Peabody, MA: Center for Applied SpecialTechnology.

Murphy, P. K., Long, J. F., Holleran, T. A., & Esterly, E. (2003). Persuasion online or on paper: A new take onan old issue. Learning and Instruction, 13, 511–532.

Ono, H., & Zavodny, M. (2003). Gender and the Internet. Social Science Quarterly, 84, 111–121.Paxton, R. J. (1999). A deafening silence: History textbooks and the students who read them. Review of

Educational Research, 69, 315–339.Recker, M., & Pirolli, P. (1995). Modeling individual differences in students’ learning strategies. Journal of the

Learning Sciences, 4, 1–38.Renninger, K. A. (2000). Individual interest and its implications for understanding intrinsic motivation. In C.

Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and

performance (pp. 373–404). San Diego: Academic Press.Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. (2002). Student interest and achievement: Developmental issues raised by a case

study. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 173–195). San Diego:Academic Press.

Repman, J., Willer, H., & Lan, W. (1993). The impact of social context on learning in hypermedia-basedinstruction. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 2, 283–298.

Rouet, J. F. (2003). Information search and learning. In Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the European

Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Padova, Italy.Rouet, J. F., Britt, M. A., Mason, R. A., & Perfetti, C. A. (1996). Using multiple sources of evidence to reason

about history. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 478–493.Rouet, J. F., Jegou, G., Metta, S., & Limam, S. (2003). Learning to use a Web browser: Lessons from a two-year

longitudinal study. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the European Association for Research on

Learning and Instruction, Padova, Italy.Rozendaal, J. S., de Brabander, C. J., & Minnaert, A. (2001). Boundaries and dimensionality of epistemological

beliefs. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the European Association for Research on Learning and

Instruction, Fribourg, Switzerland.Schiefele, U. (1998). Individual interest and learning, what we know and what we don’t know. In L. Hoffman, A.

Krapp, K. Renninger, & J. Baumert (Eds.), Interest and learning: Proceedings of the Seeon conference on

interest and gender (pp. 91–104). Kiel, Germany: IPN.Schiefele, U. (1999). Interest and learning from text. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 257–279.Schiefele, U., Krapp, A., Wild, K. P., & Winteler, A. (1993). Der Frageboden zum Studieninteresse (FSI) [The

Study Interest Questionnaire {SIQ}]. Diagnostica, 39, 335–351.Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 82, 498–504.Schommer, M., Crouse, A., & Rhodes, N. (1992). Epistemological beliefs and mathematical text comprehension:

Believing it is simple does not make it so. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 435–443.Schommer, M., & Walker, K. (1995). Are epistemological beliefs similar across domains? Journal of Educational

Psychology, 87, 424–432.Schommer-Aikins, M. (2002). An evolving theoretical framework for an epistemological belief system. In B. K.

Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing

(pp. 103–118). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Schraw, G., Bendixen, L. D., & Dunkle, M. E. (2002). Development and validation of the Epistemic Belief

Inventory (EBI). In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about

knowledge and knowing (pp. 261–275). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Schumacher, P., & Morahan-Martin, J. (2001). Gender, Internet and computer attitudes and experiences.

Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 95–110.Shute, V. (1993). A comparison of learning environments: All that glitters. In S. Lajoie & S. Derry (Eds.),

Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 47–73). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Simpson, M. L., & Nist, S. L. (2002). Encouraging active reading at the college level. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley

(Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 365–379). New York: Guilford.Singh, S. (2001). Gender and the use of Internet at home. New Media & Society, 3, 395–416.


Spires, H. A., & Estes, T. H. (2002). Reading in Web-based learning environments. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley(Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 115–125). New York: Guilford.

Tergan, S. (1997). Misleading theoretical assumptions in hypertext/hypermedia research. Journal of Educational

Multimedia and Hypermedia, 6, 257–283.TNS Gallup (2003). InterTrack. TNS Gallup [On-line]. Available: http://www.tns-gallup.no/arch/_img/

192605.ppt.Oostendorp, H., & de Mul, S. (1996). Cognitive aspects of electronic text processing. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Weinstein, C. E. (1987). LASSI user’s manual. Clearwater, FL: H & H Publishing.Weinstein, C. E., Palmer, D. R., & Schulte, A. C. (1987). LASSI: Learning and Study Strategies Inventory.

Clearwater, FL: H & H Publishing.Wood, P., & Kardash, C. (2002). Critical elements in the design and analysis of studies of epistemology. In B. K.

Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing

(pp. 231–260). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

http://www.tns-gallup.no/arch/_img/192605.ppt

http://www.tns-gallup.no/arch/_img/192605.ppt

Documents

Epistemological beliefs, interest, and gender as predictors of Internet-based learning activities