This article was downloaded by: [Stony Brook University]On: 24 October 2014, At: 22:39Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of Teacher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cete20

Modelling between epistemologicalbeliefs and constructivist learningenvironmentAyla Çetin-Dindara, Zübeyde Demet Kırbulutb & Yezdan Bozc

a Faculty of Education, Department of Elementary ScienceEducation, Bartin University, Bartin, Turkeyb Faculty of Education, Department of Elementary Education,Harran University, Sanliurfa, Turkeyc Faculty of Education, Department of Secondary Science andMathematics Education, Middle East Technical University, Ankara,TurkeyPublished online: 05 Aug 2014.

To cite this article: Ayla Çetin-Dindar, Zübeyde Demet Kırbulut & Yezdan Boz (2014) Modellingbetween epistemological beliefs and constructivist learning environment, European Journal ofTeacher Education, 37:4, 479-496, DOI: 10.1080/02619768.2014.944614

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2014.944614

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

2:39

24

Oct

ober

201

4

Modelling between epistemological beliefs and constructivistlearning environment

Ayla Çetin-Dindara, Zübeyde Demet Kırbulutb and Yezdan Bozc*

aFaculty of Education, Department of Elementary Science Education, Bartin University,Bartin, Turkey; bFaculty of Education, Department of Elementary Education, HarranUniversity, Sanliurfa, Turkey; cFaculty of Education, Department of Secondary Science andMathematics Education, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey

The purpose of this study was to model the relationship between pre-servicechemistry teachers’ epistemological beliefs and their preference to use construc-tivist-learning environment in their future class. The sample was 125 pre-servicechemistry teachers from five universities in Turkey. Two instruments were used inthis study. One of the instruments was constructivist-learning environment scaledeveloped by Taylor, Fraser and Fisher. The other instrument wasEpistemological Questionnaire (EQ) developed by Schommer. In order to analysedata, Structural Equation Modelling was conducted by using LISREL 8.7. Theresults provided evidence for the good fit of the hypothesised model. Pre-servicechemistry teachers’ epistemological belief scores were found to be correlated totheir constructivist-learning environment scale scores with the value of .35. Thisstudy revealed that pre-service chemistry teachers with sophisticated epistemolog-ical beliefs favoured constructivist-learning environment in their future class.

Keywords: epistemological beliefs; constructivist-learning environment;modelling; pre-service chemistry teachers

Introduction

Epistemological beliefs have been the focus of the research studies in recent years.They involve the ideas concerning the nature of knowledge (Hofer and Pintrich1997). Teachers’ epistemological beliefs were found to affect their choice of instruc-tion and decisions in class. For example, teachers who believe the certainty ofknowledge and that knowledge is obtained from the external authority tend to imple-ment traditional instruction. Teachers with more sophisticated epistemological beliefsare more inclined to conduct constructivist instruction (Chan 2003; Schraw andOlafson 2003). Therefore, consideration of teachers’ and pre-service teachers’ episte-mological beliefs is an important construct in teacher education research. Anotherimportant concept in education is the learning environment because it is influentialin students’ learning outcomes. When students are educated in an organised learningenvironment, their achievement and interest increase (Fraser 1998). Therefore, it isvital for teachers to organise effective learning environment for their students. In thepresent study, it is aimed to explore the relationship between pre-service chemistryteachers’ epistemological beliefs and their preference to implement constructivist-learning environment in their future class.

*Corresponding author. Email: yezdan@metu.edu.tr

© 2014 Association for Teacher Education in Europe

European Journal of Teacher Education, 2014Vol. 37, No. 4, 479–496, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2014.944614

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

2:39

24

Oct

ober

201

4

Theoretical framework

Learning environments of students have been reported to be influential on theiraffective and cognitive outcomes. It was found that students achieved better in clas-ses perceived by students to be less disorganised, and have better cohesiveness andgoal direction (Fraser 1998). Moreover, Fraser and Fisher (1982) reported students’interest in science was more in classes having better involvement, order and organi-sation. Therefore, it is important to assess students’ learning environment at schools.For this purpose, several instruments such as Learning Environment Inventory(Walberg and Anderson 1968), Classroom Environment Scale (Moos 1979), What isHappening in this Class Questionnaire (Fraser, McRobbie, and Fisher 1996) weredeveloped.

The constructivist-learning environment survey (CLES) by Taylor and Fraser(1991) and Taylor, Fraser and Fisher (1997) was also another instrument used toobtain students’ perceptions about their classroom environment. The CLES evaluatesthe extent to which students’ learning environment reflects constructivist principles.Constructivist view of learning considers students as active learners who interactwith the environment and people to construct their own knowledge. Social negotia-tion is important. The role of the teacher is to support and guide students and facili-tate their learning by providing suitable resources (Driscoll 2005). For sure, weexpect the constructivist-learning environment to reflect the constructivist principles.Wilson (1996, 5) defined constructivist-learning environment as ‘a place wherelearners may work together and support each other as they use a variety of tools andinformation resources in their guided pursuit of learning goals and problem-solvingactivities’. The CLES not only assesses students’ perceptions of their learning envi-ronment but also helps teachers ‘… to reflect on their epistemological assumptionsand reshape their teaching practice’ (Fraser 2007, 107). In the current study, we usedthe CLES to obtain pre-service chemistry teachers’ preferences to apply principlesof constructivist view of learning in their future chemistry class.

Teachers’ beliefs were influential on their behaviour in the classroom (Pajares1992). Tsai (2002) described teacher beliefs in a spectrum from traditional to con-structivist. Similarly, Markic and Eilks (2008) suggested a continuum from tradi-tional beliefs to modern beliefs. In line with Pajares’ (1992) study, various studieswere conducted by researchers to explicate teachers’ belief structures (Mansour2009; Markic and Eilks 2008, 2012; Oliver and Koballa 1992). Researchers arguedthat teachers’ belief structures stemmed from various components such as educa-tional and sociocultural background, and personal experience (Al-Amoush et al.2014; Markic and Eilks 2008, 2012, 2013). For example, Markic and Eilks (2008)studied with German freshmen chemistry student teachers regarding their beliefswithin the following three dimensions: classroom organisation, learning objectivesand epistemology. They found that participants had tendencies towards more tradi-tional beliefs in terms of these three dimensions. In another study, Markic and Eilks(2013) conducted a cross-level study including German freshmen chemistry studentteachers, 5th semester chemistry student teachers, and in-service chemistry teachers.They revealed that while freshmen chemistry student teachers’ belief structuresabout teaching and learning were traditional, 5th semester chemistry student teachersand in-service chemistry teachers held modern beliefs about teaching and learning.In line with these studies, Al-Amoush et al. (2014) explored teachers’ belief struc-tures by making international comparisons among Jordanian, German and Turkish

480 A. Çetin-Dindar et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

2:39

24

Oct

ober

201

4

chemistry student teachers and in-service teachers. They reported that Jordanianchemistry student teachers held the most traditional beliefs about teaching and learn-ing chemistry, while the participants from Germany had the most modern beliefs.

Another important construct is the epistemological beliefs. Personal epistemologyhas been a paramount research area over the last four decades. Previously, the focusof the research is on the nature of knowledge (Perry 1968). Then, researchersadvanced Perry’s work (Hofer and Pintrich 1997; King and Kitchener 1994) and in1990, ‘epistemological belief system’ was introduced by Schommer as an umbrellaterm including the nature of knowledge and nature of learning. However, it shouldbe indicated that some researchers (Hofer and Pintrich 1997) limited the personalepistemology to the nature of knowledge, while some researchers extended the focusof the personal epistemological beliefs to the social interactions (Schommer-Aikins2004). Several researchers conceptualised epistemological beliefs differently. Thefirst conceptualisation of epistemological beliefs came from Perry’s work, althoughhe never used the term ‘epistemological beliefs’ in his work (e.g. Perry 1968). Thethree dimensions, structure, certainty and source of knowledge, were derived fromhis work. Schommer (1990) stated that epistemological belief system consisted ofthe stability of knowledge, the source of knowledge, structure of knowledge, thespeed of learning and the ability to learn, and these beliefs were more-or-lessindependent. She also developed a questionnaire in order to assess these hypothe-sised beliefs. Hofer and Pintrich (1997) documented four epistemological dimensionsincluding simplicity of knowledge, certainty of knowledge, source of knowing andjustification for knowing. Hofer (2000) also developed a measure to assess these fourdimensions. Epistemological beliefs were also classified by researchers on acontinuum from naive to sophisticated (Pulmones 2010; Schommer 1990). ThoughPerry (1968), King and Kitchener (1994) and Belenky et al. (1986) indicated theunidimensional and developmental nature of epistemological beliefs, Schommer(1990, 1994) mentioned the multifaceted nature of epistemological beliefs:

I proposed that epistemological beliefs be reconceived as a system of more or lessindependent beliefs. By system, I mean that there is more than one belief to consider.And by more or less independent, I mean that individuals may be sophisticated insome beliefs, but not necessarily sophisticated in other beliefs. (Schommer 1994, 300)

As understood from the above statement, a person has a belief system, that is, morethan one belief to consider, and sophistication in these beliefs may vary.

Schommer (1990) described five epistemological beliefs. The first one is thestability of knowledge, which reveals beliefs about certainty or tentativeness ofknowledge. Secondly, source of knowledge involves epistemological beliefs regard-ing whether knowledge is obtained from the authority such as teacher, textbook, etc.or personal reasoning is important for construction of knowledge. The other type ofepistemological belief is related to the structure of knowledge that views knowledge,composed of either isolated pieces to highly integrated concepts. Another type ofepistemological beliefs related to whether learning occurs quickly or gradually waslabelled as speed of learning. The final type of epistemological belief is the abilityto learn, which mentions about the innate nature of learning or developmental natureof learning by time.

The construct of epistemological beliefs were found to be positively correlatedwith various variables such as academic achievement (Hammer 1994; Hofer andPintrich 1997; Paulsen and Wells 1998; Schommer et al. 2000; Tsai 2000a);

European Journal of Teacher Education 481

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

2:39

24

Oct

ober

201

4

conceptual change (Qian and Alvermann 1995); and motivation (Paulsen andFeldman 1999). Some research studies also reported the relationship betweenpre-service teachers’ epistemological beliefs and their intended practice in theirclass. Researchers documented that as learners develop more sophisticated views ofepistemology of science, they could be more constructivist learners (Chan and Elliott2004). Chan (2003) stated that pre-service teachers with traditional conceptions ofteaching and learning had naive epistemological beliefs. For example, they believedthe certainty of knowledge and innate nature of learning. Moreover, they claimedthe source of knowledge as the authority rather than personal reasoning. However,pre-service teachers having constructivist view of teaching held sophisticated episte-mological beliefs, thinking that knowledge is tentative and personal experiences andreasoning are important for obtaining knowledge. Likewise, Markic and Eilks(2008) stated that most of the pre-service chemistry teachers with naive epistemolog-ical beliefs have also traditional beliefs of classroom organisation. To clarify,pre-service teachers considering that learning occurs by transmission of knowledgeby authority organise the classroom in a teacher-centred way. Similarly, the study ofSchraw and Olafson (2003) showed that pre-service teachers’ epistemological beliefswere influential on their preference for teaching methods. For example, teacherswho believe that knowledge is certain and the source of knowledge is externalauthority such as teacher or textbooks prefer to implement traditional instruction thatdoes not involve students in teaching/learning process, in their classrooms.

By taking the related literature into consideration, it is hypothesised that pre-service teachers’ epistemological beliefs was directly related to their preference toimplement constructivist strategies in the learning environment they would create. Itis crucial to evaluate science teachers’ epistemological beliefs in order to learn howteachers make decisions about curriculum and their instruction. Thereby, the purposeof this study was to model the relationship between pre-service chemistry teachers’epistemological beliefs and their preference to use constructivist-learning environ-ment in their future class. The research questions of the current study were:

� What are pre-service chemistry teachers’ epistemological beliefs?� What are pre-service chemistry teachers’ preferences to use constructivist-learning environment in their future class?

� What is the nature of the relationship between pre-service chemistry teachers’epistemological beliefs and their preference to use constructivist-learning envi-ronment in their future class?

Methodology

Sample

The sample of this study consisted of 125 (63.3% females and 36.7% males) pre-service chemistry teachers (48% fourth-year students and 52% fifth-year students)from five state universities in Turkey. There are 13 universities which have chemis-try teacher education programme. These universities host around 800 students infourth- and fifth-year students. In the current study, five of 13 universities located inthree different cities were selected conveniently. The sample of the study matchedmore than 10% of the population. The demographic information regardingparticipants in each university is given in Table 1.

482 A. Çetin-Dindar et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

2:39

24

Oct

ober

201

4

In all universities, chemistry teacher education programmes are based on five-year programme model. At this programme, the students must complete subject mat-ter courses in three and a half years. They start taking pedagogical courses from thethird semester to the graduation to complete chemistry teacher education programmewith a non-thesis master’s degree. Since all teacher education programmes followthe same five-year programme model, it was supposed that the background of theparticipants from the selected universities was similar. The pedagogical coursesstudents take in each semester are shown in Table 2.

In Turkey, the studies on the revision of science curriculum based on constructivistapproach started in 2004 (MONE 2004). Before that, the curriculum was traditional,that is, the instruction was mostly teacher-centred. Although the participants of thestudy were instructed traditionally before their enrolment in the chemistry teachereducation programme, they learn constructivist approaches while taking pedagogicalcourses.

Instruments

Two instruments were used in this study. One of the instruments was CLES devel-oped by Taylor, Fraser, and Fisher (1997) and translated into Turkish by Aydin et al.(2012). The other instrument was EQ developed by Schommer (1990) and translatedinto Turkish by Yilmaz-Tuzun and Topcu (2008). The administration of the twoinstruments was done at the same time to the participants and took approximatelyone class hour. The participants were asked to complete the instruments as well aspersonal demographic information such as university, grade, gender, age and gradepoint average (GPA). It should be noted that all grades from all current classes areaveraged to create the GPA.

CLES

The teachers’ preferred version of the CLES was translated into Turkish by Aydinet al. (2012). They reported a good model fit with the data and Cronbach’s α coeffi-cient as .87. The CLES consists of five scales, which are Personal relevance (PR),Uncertainty of science (US), Critical voice (CV), Shared control (SC) and Studentnegotiation (SN). The Cronbach’s α coefficient for scales ranged from .71 to .86.The 30-item instrument, six items in each scale, has a five-point scale ranging from

Table 1. Frequency for grade level and gender.

Grades Gender

University 4th 5th

Female Male

4th 5th 4th 5th

A 21* 17 14 8 5 9B 18 17 11 10 7 7C 8 27* 6 17 2 8D 13* – 7 – 5 –E – 4 – 3 – 1Total 60 65 38 38 19 25

*There is some missing data in gender.

European Journal of Teacher Education 483

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

2:39

24

Oct

ober

201

4

almost never (1) to almost always (5); participants’ total scores could range from 30to 150. The PR scale illustrates relatedness of schoolwork with everyday experi-ences; the US scale illustrates opportunities given to experience uncertainty of scien-tific knowledge; the CV scale is about social climate in a class to ask questions; theSC scale shows students’ involvement in constructing learning environment; and theSN scale demonstrates opportunities of student–student cooperation and interaction.The following sample items are from the CLES instrument, each item representingdifferent scale:

(1) Students learn about the world outside of school (PR scale).(2) Students learn that science cannot provide perfect answers to problems

(US scale).(3) It’s OK for students to ask me ‘Why do we have to learn this?’ (CV scale).(4) Students help me to plan what they are going to learn (SC scale).(5) Students get the chance to talk to other students (SN scale).

It was expected from pre-service chemistry teachers to express their learningenvironment preferences in their future classroom. Pre-service chemistry teachers’responses on items represent their perceptions of traditional learning environment orconstructivist-learning environment. Participants in a view of traditional teachingwere expected to have lower scores, while participants in a view of constructivistapproach of teaching were expected to have higher scores. The participants of thecurrent study were aware of the constructivist approaches which were addressed inpedagogical courses as Methods of Science and Mathematics Teaching I and II. Asseen from Table 2, fifth-year pre-service chemistry teachers completed Methods ofScience and Mathematics Teaching I and II at their seventh and eighth semester.Fourth-year students took Methods of Science and Mathematics Teaching I at the

Table 2. Pedagogical courses for chemistry teacher education programme.

3rd Semester Introduction to education4th Semester Development and learning5th Semester Curriculum development

and instruction in science/mathematics education

6th Semester Theories and approachesin teaching and learningscience/mathematics

Measurement andevaluation in science/mathematics education

7th Semester Methods ofscience/mathematicsteaching I

Computer applicationsin science/mathematicseducation

8th Semester Methods ofscience/mathematicsteaching II

Instructional technologyand material development

Laboratoryexperiments inscience education

9th Semester Guidance School experiencein science/mathematicseducation

Turkish educationalsystem and schoolmanagement

10th Semester Classroom management Practice teachingin science/mathematicseducation

Research projects inscience/mathematicseducation

484 A. Çetin-Dindar et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

2:39

24

Oct

ober

201

4

seventh semester, and at the time of study, they were taking Methods of Science andMathematics Teaching II and nearly finished that course since data were collectedtowards the end of the semester. In the Methods of Science and Mathematics Teach-ing I and II courses, students learn about instructional theories about learning andteaching process as well as teaching methods and strategies that can be used inchemistry classes. More specifically, they learn about constructivism, multiple intel-ligence theory and instructional methods based on these theories such as conceptualchange strategies, argumentation, learning cycle, inquiry, creative drama, instructionbased on multiple intelligence theory, cooperative learning, problem-based instruc-tion and project-based instruction theoretically. Moreover, students make micro-teaching in the classroom in order to explain chemistry topics by using theseteaching methods.

EQ

The EQ was translated into Turkish by Yilmaz-Tuzun and Topcu (2008). Theyobtained a good model fit for four-factor structure. The Cronbach α coefficients ran-ged from .20 to .60 for each factor. The 63-item instrument has a five-point scaleranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The items which needrecoding were recoded; in this way, the high-scored items represent the same view,which is a naive view of epistemological beliefs.

Yilmaz-Tuzun and Topcu (2008) found four-factor structure based on theanalysis, which were Innate ability (IA), Certain knowledge (CK), Simple knowl-edge (SK) and Omniscient authority (OA). The IA scale illustrates that learning isquick, innate and not related to hard work; the CK scale illustrates that knowledgeis certain; the SK scale illustrates that knowledge is ranged from simple pieces tointegrated concepts; and the OA scale illustrates authority is must and not criticised.The following sample items are from the EQ instrument, each item representingdifferent scale:

(1) Some people are born good learners, others are just stuck with limited ability(IA scale).

(2) If scientists try hard enough, they can find the truth to almost everything(CK scale).

(3) Educators should know by now which is the best method, lectures or smallgroup discussions (SK scale).

(4) For success in school, it is best not to ask too many questions (OA scale).

Lower scores obtained from the EQ instrument illustrates that participants devel-oped more sophisticated epistemological beliefs while higher scores contribute tomore naive perspective.

Analysis of the data

In order to analyse data, descriptive statistics and exploratory factor analysis wererun via IBM SPSS Statistics 20, and Structural Equation Modelling was conductedby using LISREL 8.7 for testing the model.

Model-generating strategy was taken into account for testing the model, whichis testing the model according to the data and then modifying when there is

European Journal of Teacher Education 485

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

2:39

24

Oct

ober

201

4

inappropriateness and testing again, to have meaningful interpretations of therelationships between the variables (Jöreskog and Sörbom 1993).

Results

Results on the CLES

Exploratory factor analysis was conducted for validating the factor structure of theCLES. An examination of Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacyvalue was found to be factorable (KMO = .802) and factor loadings ranged from.501 to .909 (see Table 3) with eigenvalues larger than one. Therefore, five scaleswere determined, which were PR, US, CV, SC and SN. The total variance explainedby these five scales was 60.886%. The Cronbach α value of the survey was found tobe .89 and ranging between .76 and .92 for scales (see Table 4 for each scale’sCronbach α value). Therefore, the results in the current study replicated the study ofAydin et al. (2012).

Afterwards determining the scales, descriptive statistic results were computed forthe CLES and Table 4 presents mean scores on each scale of the CLES.

Based on the results in Table 4, the pre-service chemistry teachers scored thehighest rate on the CV scale (the highest score obtained from each scale was 30),which indicated that they tended to create quite a constructivist classroom environ-ment in their future class in which students would feel free to ask questions andexpress their thoughts on their teaching approaches. The following highest scaleswere the PR and SN, respectively; which indicated that the pre-service chemistryteachers would tend to emphasise the relationship of school science to students’daily-life experiences and give importance to student-centred learning environmentsin which students would interact with each other. The SC scale had slightly lowermean score than the first three scales but as high as to be considered of a construc-tivist-learning environment in which students had opportunities to control learningenvironment with their teachers instead of a teacher being the one authority in aclass. The US scale had the lowest mean score, indicating that the pre-service chem-istry teachers had the lowest preferences for students obtaining experience uncer-tainty of scientific knowledge.

Furthermore, Table 5 presents the mean scores of the pre-service chemistryteachers’ perceptions of constructivist-learning environments across grade level andgender for each scale. As seen from the table, the female pre-service chemistryteachers had higher perceptions of constructivist-learning environments, consideringthe PR, US and CV scales, both for fourth- and fifth-year students. The male pre-service chemistry teachers scored higher for the SC scale in fourth-year students andslightly higher for also the SN scale in fifth-year students.

Results on the EQ

Exploratory factor analysis was conducted for validating the factor structure of theEQ. An examination of Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy valuewas found to be factorable (KMO = .719) and factor loadings ranged from .540 to.791 (see Table 6) with eigenvalues larger than one. Therefore, four scales weredetermined, which were OA, SK, CK and IA. The total variance explained by thesefour scales was 57.773%. The Cronbach’s α value of the survey was found to be .67and ranging between .39 and .60 for scales (see Table 5 for each scale). These low

486 A. Çetin-Dindar et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

2:39

24

Oct

ober

201

4

reliability values were consistent with the previous studies of Schommer (1990)ranging between .51 and .78, and Yilmaz-Tuzun and Topcu (2008) ranging between.20 and .60.

The similar procedure to Schommer (1990) and Yilmaz-Tuzun and Topcu (2008)was followed in the present study for constructing scales; firstly, 12 subset hypothet-ical dimension scores were calculated (which were ‘seek single answers’, ‘avoidintegration’, ‘avoid ambiguity’, ‘knowledge is certain’, ‘do not criticise authority’,

Table 3. Factor loading of the CLES.

Item number SN SC US PR CV

Y28 .909 .261 .277 .215 .378Y27 .904 .247 .255 .234 .331Y29 .875 .351 .169 .247 .373Y30 .872 .306 .182 .286 .397Y26 .835 .223 .277 .283 .286Y25 .711 .243 .457 .311Y22 .245 .881 .145 .218Y23 .232 .798 .151Y21 .266 .785 .119 .187 .144Y19 .139 .745 .125 .161 .217Y24 .235 .681 .178 .145Y20 .358 .668 .146 .228 .134Y10 .225 .189 .806Y12 .233 .125 .757 .157 .171Y9 .202 .127 .748 .222Y7 .153 .137 .561Y8 .364 .168 .529 .447 .217Y11 .443 .502 .282 .236Y4 .170 .189 .119 .808 .244Y1 .283 .146 .766 .245Y6 .234 .696 .117Y5 .245 .271 .167 .664 .314Y3 .467 .130 .244 .597 .407Y2 .278 .501 .133Y14 .364 .184 .132 .856Y16 .351 .242 .271 .828Y13 .226 .143 .175 .793Y15 .303 .126 .275 .791Y18 .448 .131 .320 .763Y17 .309 .378 .714Eigenvalues 8.398 3.155 2.710 2.233 1.769Total variance % 27.994 10.518 9.034 7.443 5.897

Table 4. Pre-service chemistry teachers’ perceptions of constructivist-learning environments.

Scale Mean SDCronbach

α

PR 25.23 3.42 .78US 20.84 4.73 .76CV 25.53 4.66 .88SC 22.76 4.56 .85SN 25.14 4.12 .92

European Journal of Teacher Education 487

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

2:39

24

Oct

ober

201

4

‘depend on authority’, ‘cannot learn how to learn’, ‘success is unrelated to hardwork’, ‘ability to learn is innate’, ‘learning is quick’, ‘learn first time’ and ‘concen-trated effort is a waste of time’) and factor loadings higher than .50 were consideredin naming the scales resulting in four-scaled structure, which were OA (including‘do not criticise authority’, ‘cannot learn how to learn’, ‘success is unrelated to hardwork’ and ‘concentrated effort is a waste of time’ subsets), SK (including ‘seeksingle answers’ and ‘depend on authority’ subsets), CK (including ‘knowledge iscertain’ and ‘avoid integration’ subsets) and IA (including ‘ability to learn is innate’and ‘learning is quick’ subsets). The results moderately replicated the study ofYilmaz-Tuzun and Topcu (2008).

Afterwards determining the scales, descriptive statistics results were computedfor the EQ and Table 7 presents the mean scores on each scale of the EQ.

Based on the results on Table 7, the highest mean rate was computed on the SKscale (the mean was the closest to the maximum score), indicating that the pre-service chemistry teachers seek for single answers and depend on authority express-ing a naive view of epistemological beliefs. Next scale was the CK scale, showingthat the pre-service chemistry teachers believe that knowledge is certain and theyavoid integration. However, the pre-service chemistry teachers hold sophisticatedview of epistemological beliefs regarding IA and omniscient authority. In otherwords, the pre-service chemistry teachers do not believe that ability to learn is innate

Table 5. The mean scores of pre-service chemistry teachers’ perceptions of constructivist-learning environments across grade level and gender.

Scale

Fourth year Fifth year

Female Male Female Male

PR 25.21 23.94 26.60 24.84US 20.76 20.33 22.03 20.00CV 26.21 23.94 26.00 25.20SC 22.03 23.39 23.40 22.64SN 25.50 23.94 25.46 25.52

Table 6. Factor loadings of the EQ.

Subsets

Component

OA SK CK IA

do not criticise authority .762 −.376 −.369hard work .758 .192 −.148waste of time .657 .116 −.268 −.141how to learn .613 −.449 −.392 −.253authority .113 .762 −.225single .698ambiguity .478 −.322 −.249certain .120 −.785 −.158integration .424 −.709 −.306innate .255 −.791quick .253 −.358 −.764first time .363 −.438 −.540Eigenvalues 3.068 1.669 1.192 1.004Total variance % 25.570 13.907 9.931 8.365

488 A. Çetin-Dindar et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

2:39

24

Oct

ober

201

4

and learning is quick. Furthermore, they criticise the knowledge given by expertsand according to them learning can be learned since success is related to hard work.

Furthermore, Table 8 presents the mean scores of the pre-service chemistryteachers’ epistemological beliefs across grade level and gender; the fifth-year femalepre-service chemistry teachers scored lower for all scales than males, indicating thatfemale participants were more near to sophisticated view of epistemological beliefsfor the OA, SK, CK and IA scales. The fourth-year female pre-service chemistryteachers scored lower for the OA and IA scales and the male participants scoredlower for the SK scale, indicating more sophisticated view for aforementioned scalesacross gender; for the CK scale, both female and male pre-service chemistryteachers scored almost equally.

A model between epistemological beliefs and constructivist-learning environment

The hypothesised model for the pre-service chemistry teachers’ epistemologicalbeliefs and their perceptions was to find significant but negative correlation, indicat-ing that pre-service chemistry teachers with sophisticated view of epistemologicalbeliefs prefer to create more constructivist-learning environment than pre-servicechemistry teachers with naive view of epistemological beliefs. In order to test thehypothesised model, scales of the surveys were added into the model as theobserved variables, and the CLES and EQ were added into the model as the latentvariables. The relationships between observed and latent variables were given inTable 9.

The results provided evidence for the good fit of the hypothesised model (seeTable 10 for goodness-of-fit indices). The χ2, was found to be 26.23 with degrees offreedom of, df, 26 and Normed Chi-Square (NC) was calculated by dividing χ2 bydf with value of 1.01, indicating a goof fit to the data. For the good model fit, theNC value less than five is acceptable (Tabachnick and Fidell 2007).

Table 7. Pre-service chemistry teachers’ epistemological beliefs.

Scale Mean SD Range (Min–Max)Cronbach

α

OA 9.25 2.16 1.97–22.35 .60SK 6.05 .82 .50–7.45 .39CK 4.99 .87 .67–7.46 .57IA 5.44 1.11 1.80–10.55 .53

Table 8. The mean scores of pre-service chemistry teachers’ epistemological beliefs acrossgrade level and gender.

Scale

Fourth Year Fifth Year

Female Male Female Male

OA 9.22 9.91 8.63 9.76SK 6.23 5.71 5.91 6.16CK 4.91 4.90 4.93 5.20IA 5.35 5.56 5.30 5.71

European Journal of Teacher Education 489

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

2:39

24

Oct

ober

201

4

Pre-service chemistry teachers’ epistemological belief scores were found to becorrelated to their constructivist-learning environment scale scores with the value of−.35 (see Figure 1 for the model). In other words, pre-service chemistry teachers’perceptions of constructivist-learning environments is significantly and negativelyrelated to the pre-service chemistry teachers’ epistemological beliefs (Φ = −.35,t = −2.39, p < .05). In addition, according to the model, the scales of the CLESnamely the PR, SN, CV, US and SC contributed to the model significantly and posi-tively, respectively; and the scales of the EQ, namely OA, CK and IA contributed tothe model significantly and positively, respectively. The SK scale of the EQ did notcontribute significantly to the model (see Figure 2 for T-values).

Discussion and conclusion

The purpose of this study was to model the relationship between pre-servicechemistry teachers’ epistemological beliefs and their preference to use constructivist-learning environment in their future class. For this purpose, two instruments wereused in the present study. One of the instruments was the CLES and the results ofthe factor structure of the CLES revealed a similar factor structure with the adapta-tion study of Aydin et al. (2012) with pre-service chemistry teachers. The otherinstrument was the EQ and the results of the factor structure of the EQ revealed asimilar four-factor model with different item loadings with the adaptation study ofYilmaz-Tuzun and Topcu (2008); the difference in item loadings may be due tothe item translation, and the translated items were interpreted differently or due tothe close meaning in the items and they could not be clearly differentiated by thepre-service chemistry teachers (Yilmaz-Tuzun and Topcu 2008).

Table 9. Measurement coefficients of the model.

Latent variables Observed variables λ

CLES PR .63US .34CV .50SC .30SN .59

EQ OA .52SK .23CK .52IA .48

Table 10. Goodness-of-fit indices of the epistemological beliefs and constructivist-learningenvironment model.

Index Value Cutoff criteria

NFI .80 ≥.95NNFI 1.00 ≥.95GFI .96 ≥.95AGFI .92 ≥.95RMSEA .006 <.05SRMR .064 <.08CI for RMSEA .00; .07

490 A. Çetin-Dindar et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

2:39

24

Oct

ober

201

4

The descriptive statistics results of the CLES revealed that the pre-servicechemistry teachers mostly prefer constructivist-learning environment in their futureclass, specifically about the CV, the PR and the SN. However, they will not quiteconsider uncertainty of scientific knowledge in their future class. Similar resultswere also found in the study of Aydin et al. (2012).

The descriptive statistics results of the EQ revealed that while the pre-servicechemistry teachers in this study had the most naive view of epistemological beliefon SK and CK in learning by seeking for single answers, they had the mostlysophisticated view of epistemological beliefs on OA in learning and IA, believing incriticism of the knowledge even when it is given by experts, and supporting thatlearning can be learned and learning is gradual. However, study of Al-Amoush et al.(2014) revealed that Turkish pre- and in-service chemistry teachers held traditionalviews of epistemological beliefs thinking mostly that learning results in case knowl-edge is transmitted by the teacher. Although the participants in the current studycame from exam-driven system and traditional instruction before entering the

Figure 1. Pre-service chemistry teachers’ epistemological beliefs and constructivist-learningenvironment model with standardised estimates.

European Journal of Teacher Education 491

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

2:39

24

Oct

ober

201

4

chemistry teacher education programme, they held modern views of epistemologicalbeliefs on OA and IA. This could result from the aforementioned pedagogicalcourses that the participants took through their chemistry education programme.Markic and Eilks (2013) also showed that modern teacher education programmescould drive a shift in teachers’ beliefs from traditional to more modern beliefs inteaching and learning. However, still pre-service chemistry teachers in this studyhad mostly naive view of epistemological belief on simple and CK in learning byseeking for single answers. Traditional instruction that they got throughout theirschooling period may be influential for these epistemological beliefs.

According to the inferential statistics, the hypothesised model was supported bythe results and the model illustrated that the pre-service chemistry teachers’ prefer-ence of creating constructivist-learning environment in their future classrooms wassignificantly related to their epistemological beliefs. The most contributing scale ofthe CLES was PR scale, indicating that pre-service chemistry teachers with sophisti-cated view of epistemological beliefs relate schoolwork with everyday experiences,

Figure 2. Pre-service chemistry teachers’ epistemological beliefs and constructivist-learningenvironment model with T-values.

492 A. Çetin-Dindar et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

2:39

24

Oct

ober

201

4

the following contributing scale of the CLES was SN, indicating that pre-servicechemistry teachers with sophisticated view of epistemological beliefs give impor-tance to student–student cooperation and interaction; and the next contributing scaleof the CLES was CV, indicating that pre-service chemistry teachers with sophisti-cated view of epistemological beliefs create a social and friendly environment in aclass for students to ask questions. Likewise, using constructivist-learning environ-ment makes improvement on pre-service chemistry teachers’ epistemological beliefsfrom naive view to sophisticated view; the most effected scales of the EQ were OAand CK sharing the same coefficients, indicating that when authority dependency isminimised and pre-service chemistry teachers tend to criticise the knowledge givenby experts in view of the fact that knowledge is not certain and simple, and believethat learning can be learned since success is related to hard work and concentratedeffort is not waste of time, pre-service chemistry teachers tend to use constructivist-learning environment in their classes.

Therefore, this study concluded that as pre-service chemistry teachers hadsophisticated view of epistemological beliefs, they favoured constructivist-learningenvironment in their future class. This result is in line with the previous studies(Chan and Elliott 2004; Schraw and Olafson 2003) which contended that epistemo-logical world views of teachers affected their preference for teaching methods. Inorder to develop teachers’ epistemological views of beliefs, first, teacher educatorsshould determine pre-service teachers’ epistemological views of beliefs and then,should make them to be aware of their own epistemological beliefs (Yilmaz-Tuzunand Topcu 2008). After teachers know their epistemological beliefs and improvetheir own learning, accordingly they could help their students in their future class tomake development on students’ learning by using appropriate teaching strategies(Schommer-Aikins 2004; Schommer-Aikins and Easter 2006). It is known thatteachers play the key role in the success of the educational reforms (Burmeister,Schmidt-Jacob, and Eilks 2013). Markic and Eilks (2008) offered that teacher beliefsshould fit the planned changes in educational reforms in order to be successful inthese reforms. Al-Amoush et al. (2014) professed that providing opportunities to stu-dent teachers for self-reflection during pedagogical courses and integration of peda-gogical courses from the very beginning of the teacher training could be helpful inchanging student teachers’ beliefs to be in line with more modern beliefs. In conclu-sion, it is crucial to determine student teachers’ beliefs from the very beginning andmake the necessary arrangements accordingly.

The studies (such as Carey et al. 1989; Smith et al. 2000; Tsai 2000b; Uysal 2010)reported that students in a constructivist-learning environment tend to develop moresophisticated view of epistemological beliefs; therefore, it is crucial to use instructionalmethods based on constructivism in class. However, it should also be noted thatalthough teachers had sophisticated views of epistemological beliefs, they could stillprefer to use traditional teaching methods (Schraw and Olafson 2002). Therefore,further studies could investigate the reasons for the teacher preference of teachingmethods and find effective ways to develop teachers’ teaching practices.

In this study, quantitative data were collected from the fourth- and fifth-semesterpre-service chemistry teachers through their five-year chemistry teacher educationprogramme to model the relationship between their epistemological beliefs and theirpreference to use constructivist-learning environment in their future class. It wasrevealed that pre-service chemistry teachers with sophisticated epistemologicalbeliefs favoured constructivist-learning environment in their future class. As

European Journal of Teacher Education 493

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

2:39

24

Oct

ober

201

4

indicated before, teachers’ beliefs could be affected from various factors such astheir educational and sociocultural background (Al-Amoush et al. 2014), teachereducation programme they are attending (Markic and Eilks 2012) and grade level inthe teacher education programme (Markic and Eilks 2013). Accordingly, there isneed for cross-level, longitudinal and even international comparison studies to modelthe relationship in the current study in various teaching areas.

Notes on contributorsAyla Cetin-Dindar is an assistant professor at the Bartin University, Turkey. She has a PhD inchemistry education from the Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey. Her majorresearch interests include the areas of chemistry and science education, motivation in educa-tion and teacher education.

Zübeyde Demet Kırbulut is an assistant professor at Faculty of Education at HarranUniversity, Turkey. Her main research interests in science education are conceptual change,metacognition, self-efficacy, and test and scale development.

Yezdan Boz is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Education at the Middle EastTechnical University, Turkey. Her research interests involve chemistry education and teachereducation.

ReferencesAl-Amoush, S., S. Markic, M. Usak, M. Erdogan, and I. Eilks. 2014. “Beliefs About Chemistry

Teaching and Learning – A Comparison of Teachers’ and Student Teachers’ Beliefs fromJordan, Turkey and Germany.” International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education12 (4): 767–792. doi:10.1007/s10763-013-9435-7.

Aydin, S., Y. Boz, S. Sungur, and G. Cetin. 2012. “Examination of Pre-service ChemistryTeachers’ Preferences for Creating Constructivist Learning Environment.” HacettepeUniversity Journal of Education 42: 36–47.

Belenky, M. F., B. M. Clinchy, N. R. Goldberger, and J. M. Tarule. 1986. Women’s Ways ofKnowing: The Development of Self, Voice, and Mind. New York: Basic Books.

Burmeister, M., S. Schmidt-Jacob, and I. Eilks. 2013. “German Chemistry Teachers’ Under-standing of Sustainability and Education for Sustainable Development – An InterviewCase Study.” Chemistry Education Research and Practice 14 (2): 169–176. doi:10.1039/C2RP20137B.

Carey, S., R. Evans, M. Honda, E. Jay, and C. Unger. 1989. “An Experiment is When YouTry It and See If It Works: A Study of Grade 7 Students’ Understanding of theConstruction of Scientific Knowledge.” International Journal of Science Education 11(5): 514–529. doi:10.1080/0950069890110504.

Chan, K. 2003. “Hong Kong Teacher Education Students’ Epistemological Beliefs andApproaches to Learning.” Research in Education 69 (36): 36–50.

Chan, K. W., and R. G. Elliott. 2004. “Relational Analysis of Personal Epistemology andConceptions About Teaching and Learning.” Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (8):817–831. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2004.09.002.

Driscoll, M. P. 2005. Psychology of Learning for Instruction. Toronto: Allyn and Bacon.Fraser, B. J. 1998. “Science Learning Environments: Assessment, Effects and Determinants.”

In International Handbook of Science Education, edited by B. J. Fraser and K. G. Tobin,527–564. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Fraser, B. J. 2007. “Classroom Learning Environments.” In Handbook of Research onScience Education, edited by S. K. Abel and N. G. Lederman, 103–124. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Fraser, B. J., and D. L. Fisher. 1982. “Predicting Students’ Outcomes from Their Perceptionsof Classroom Psychosocial Environment.” American Educational Research Journal19 (4): 498–518.

494 A. Çetin-Dindar et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

2:39

24

Oct

ober

201

4

Fraser, B. J., C. J. McRobbie, and D. L. Fisher. 1996. “Development, Validation and Use ofPersonal and Class Forms of a New Classroom Environment Instrument.” Paper Pre-sented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, NewYork, April.

Hammer, D. 1994. “Epistemological Beliefs in Introductory Physics.” Cognition and Instruction12 (2): 151–183. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1202_4>.

Hofer, B. K. 2000. “Dimensionality and Disciplinary Differences in Personal Epistemology.”Contemporary Educational Psychology 25 (4): 378–405. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1026.

Hofer, B. K., and P. R. Pintrich. 1997. “The Development of Epistemological Theories:Beliefs About Knowledge and Knowing and Their Relation to Learning.” Review ofEducational Research 67 (1): 88–140. doi:10.3102/00346543067001088.

Jöreskog, K. G., and D. Sörbom. 1993. LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modeling with theSIMPLIS Command Language. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.

King, P. M., and K. S. Kitchener. 1994. The Development of Reflective Judgment in Adoles-cence and Adulthood. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Mansour, N. 2009. “Science Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices: Issues, Implications andResearch Agenda.” International Journal of Environmental and Science Education 4 (1):25–48.

Markic, S., and I. Eilks. 2008. “A Case Study on German First Year Chemistry StudentTeachers’ Beliefs About Chemistry Teaching, and Their Comparison with Student Teach-ers from Other Science Teaching Domains.” Chemistry Education Research and Practice9 (1): 25–34. doi:10.1039/b801288c.

Markic, S., and I. Eilks. 2012. “A Comparison of Student Teachers’ Beliefs from Four Differ-ent Science Teaching Domains Using a Mixed Methods Design.” International Journalof Science Education 34 (4): 589–608. doi:10.1080/09500693.2011.608092.

Markic, S., and I. Eilks. 2013. “Potential Changes in Prospective Chemistry Teachers’ BeliefsAbout Teaching and Learning – A Cross-level Study.” International Journal of Scienceand Mathematics Education 11 (4): 979–998. doi:10.1007/s10763-013-9417-9.

MONE (Ministry of National Education). 2004. Elementary Science and Technology Curricu-lum (4 & 5th Grades). Ankara.

Moos, R. H. 1979. Evaluating Educational Environments: Procedures, Measures, Findingsand Policy Implications. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Oliver, J., and T. Koballa. 1992. “Science Educators’ Use of the Concept of Belief.” PaperPresented at the Meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching,Boston, MA, April.

Pajares, M. F. 1992. “Teachers’ Beliefs and Educational Research: Cleaning up a Messy Con-struct.” Review of Educational Research 62 (3): 307–332. doi:10.3102/00346543062003307.

Paulsen, M. B., and K. A. Feldman. 1999. “Student Motivation and Epistemological Beliefs.”New Directions for Teaching and Learning 78: 17–25.

Paulsen, M. B., and C. T. Wells. 1998. “Domain Differences in the Epistemological Beliefsof College Students.” Research in Higher Education 39 (4): 365–384.

Perry Jr., W. G. 1968. Patterns of Development in Thought and Values of Students in aLiberal Arts College: A Validation of a Scheme. ERIC Document Reproduction ServiceNo. ED 024315. Cambridge, MA: Bureau of Study Counsel, Harvard University.

Pulmones, R. 2010. “Linking Students’ Epistemological Beliefs with Their Metacognition ina Chemistry Classroom.” The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 19 (1): 143–159.doi:10.3860/taper.v19i1.1514.

Qian, G., and D. Alvermann. 1995. “Role of Epistemological Beliefs and Learned Helpless-ness in Secondary School Students’ Learning Science Concepts from Text.” Journal ofEducational Psychology 87 (2): 282–292.

Schommer, M. 1990. “Effects of Beliefs About the Nature of Knowledge on Comprehen-sion.” Journal of Educational Psychology 82 (3): 498–504. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.3.498.

Schommer, M. 1994. “Synthesizing Epistemological Belief Research: Tentative Understand-ings and Provocative Confusions.” Educational Psychology Review 6 (4): 293–319.doi:10.1007/BF02213418.

European Journal of Teacher Education 495

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

2:39

24

Oct

ober

201

4

Schommer, M., W. Mau, S. Brookhart, and R. Hutter. 2000. “Understanding MiddleStudents’ Beliefs About Knowledge and Learning Using a Multidimensional Paradigm.”The Journal of Educational Research 94 (2): 120–127. doi:10.1080/00220670009598750.

Schommer-Aikins, M. 2004. “Explaining the Epistemological Belief System: Introducing theEmbedded Systemic Model and Coordinated Research Approach.” Educational Psycholo-gist 39 (1): 19–29. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3901_3.

Schommer-Aikins, M., and M. Easter. 2006. “Ways of Knowing and Epistemological Beliefs:Combined Effect on Academic Performance.” Educational Psychology 26 (3): 411–423.doi:10.1080/01443410500341304.

Schraw, G., and L. Olafson. 2002. “Teachers’ Epistemological World Views and EducationalPractices.” Issues in Education 8 (2): 99–149. doi:10.1891/194589503787383109.

Schraw, G., and L. Olafson. 2003. “Teachers’ Epistemological Worldviews and EducationalPractices.” Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology 3 (2): 178–235. doi:10.1891/194589503787383109.

Smith, C. L., D. Maclin, C. Houghton, and M. G. Hennesey. 2000. “Sixth Grade Students’Epistemologies of Science: The Impact of School Science Experiences on Epistemologi-cal Development.” Cognition and Instruction 18 (3): 349–422.

Tabachnick, B. G., and L. S. Fidell. 2007. Using Multivariate Statistics. New York: Allynand Bacon.

Taylor, P. C., and B. J. Fraser. 1991. “Development of an Instrument for Assessing Construc-tivist Learning Environments.” Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, April.

Taylor, P. C., B. J. Fraser, and D. L. Fisher. 1997. “Monitoring Constructivist ClassroomLearning Environments.” International Journal of Educational Research 27 (4): 293–302. doi:10.1016/S0883-0355(97)90011-2.

Tsai, C.-C. 2000a. “The Effects of STS-oriented Instruction on Female Tenth Graders’ Cogni-tive Structure Outcomes and the Role of Student Scientific Epistemological Beliefs.”International Journal of Science Education 22: 1029–1115. doi:10.1080/095006900429466.

Tsai, C.-C. 2000b. “Relationships between Student Scientific Epistemological Beliefs andPerceptions of Constructivist Learning Environment.” Educational Research 42 (2): 193–205. doi:10.1080/001318800363836.

Tsai, C.-C. 2002. “Nested Epistemologies: Science Teachers’ Beliefs of Teaching, Learningand Science.” International Journal of Science Education 24 (8): 771–783. doi:10.1080/09500690110049132.

Uysal, E. 2010. “A Modeling Study: The Interrelationship among Elementary Students’Epistemological Beliefs, Learning Environment Perceptions, Learning Approaches andScience Achievement.” PhD diss., Middle East Technical University, Ankara.

Walberg, H. J., and G. J. Anderson. 1968. “Classroom Climate and Individual Learning.”Journal of Educational Psychology 59 (6): 414–419.

Wilson, B. G. 1996. “Introduction: What is a Constructivist Learning Environment?” In Con-structivist Learning Environments, edited by B. G. Smith, 3–8. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Educational Technology Publications.

Yilmaz-Tuzun, O., and M. S. Topcu. 2008. “Relationships Among Preservice Science Teachers’Epistemological Beliefs, Epistemological World Views, and Self-efficacy Beliefs.”International Journal of Science Education 30 (1): 65–85. doi:10.1080/09500690601185113.

496 A. Çetin-Dindar et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

2:39

24

Oct

ober

201

4