This article was downloaded by: [University of Notre Dame]On: 26 August 2014, At: 21:21Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Teaching in Higher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cthe20
The influence of learning environmentson students’ epistemological beliefsand learning outcomesDenise Tolhurst aa University of New South Wales , AustraliaPublished online: 05 Jun 2008.
To cite this article: Denise Tolhurst (2007) The influence of learning environments on students’epistemological beliefs and learning outcomes, Teaching in Higher Education, 12:2, 219-233
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562510701191992
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 whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out 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
The influence of learning environments
on students’ epistemological beliefs and
learning outcomes
Denise Tolhurst*University of New South Wales, Australia
There is evidence that students’ epistemological beliefs impact on approaches to learning and
consequent learning outcomes. Epistemological beliefs have been shown to influence students’
approaches to study and problem-solving, motivation and persistence in information seeking.
There are also some preliminary research findings that suggest the structure of learning
environments can influence students’ epistemological beliefs. A study was designed to investigate
the impacts of a new course on students’ epistemological beliefs. The new course structure was
based on engaging students in web-supported independent activities prior to small-group
workshops that focused on active learning. Findings indicate that students’ epistemological beliefs
changed during the course implementation, and that students with more complex epistemological
beliefs achieved better results in the course.
Introduction
Increasing interest and research activity is evident in the literature concerning how
students’ beliefs about knowledge and knowing mediate their learning processes.
There is growing evidence that indicates epistemological beliefs influence students’
learning (Brownlee et al ., 2001; Buehl & Alexander, 2001; Hofer, 2001; Schraw,
2001; Hofer & Pintrich, 2002; Tolhurst & Debus, 2002; Andre & Windshitl, 2003).
In a review that investigates the implications for teaching and learning for students’
personal epistemology, Hofer (2001) concludes that ‘a growing body of work
provides evidence that personal epistemology is an important component of student
learning’.
Beliefs about knowledge have been shown to influence factors such as student’s
motivation, persistence and problem solving approach (Schommer, 1994; Jacobson
& Spiro, 1995; Kardash & Scholes, 1996; Schraw, 2001). Kardash and Scholes
(1996) draw attention to ‘A growing body of evidence (that) suggests individuals’
epistemological beliefs play a critical role in strategic learning in general and higher-
order thinking and problem solving in particular’. Schommer (1994) suggests that
*School of Information Systems, Technology and Management, Quadrangle Building, University
of New South Wales, UNSW Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia. Email: [email protected]
ISSN 1356-2517 (print)/ISSN 1470-1294 (online)/07/020219-15
# 2007 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/13562510701191992
Teaching in Higher EducationVol. 12, No. 2, April 2007, pp. 219�233
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
otre
Dam
e] a
t 21:
21 2
6 A
ugus
t 201
4
‘. . . epistemological beliefs affect the degree to which individuals (a) actively engage
in learning, (b) persist in difficult tasks, (c) comprehend written material, and (d)
cope with ill-structured domains. In each of these areas, the evidence suggests that
epistemological beliefs may either help or hinder learning’. In summing up the article
Schommer concludes that ‘. . . there is enough evidence to suggest epistemological
beliefs are critical to the learning process’. Similarly Schraw (2001) suggests ‘As
(epistemological) beliefs change and become more sophisticated, thinking and
problem-solving skills improve as well’.
The concept of simple versus sophisticated epistemological beliefs derives from the
work of Marlene Schommer (1990) who proposed five epistemological dimensions.
. Certainty of knowledge (absolute to tentative).
. Structure of knowledge (simple to complex).
. Source of knowledge (handed down by authority to derived by reason).
. Control of knowledge (ability to learn is fixed at birth to ability to learn can be
changed).
. Speed of knowledge acquisition (knowledge is acquired quickly or not-at-all to
knowledge is acquired gradually).
Simple epistemological beliefs take knowledge to be absolute, simple, handed
down by authority, acquired quickly or not at all and that the ability to learn is fixed
at birth. Students with simple beliefs are likely to engage in study habits in which they
rely on authority (perhaps the lecturer) to provide clear answers. When researching,
such students are likely to be satisfied with the first information they find that they
believe provides a suitable answer, and not persist if they do not locate information
quickly and easily (Tolhurst & Debus, 2002). They are not likely to seek information
from multiple sources, or to integrate ideas. Students with more sophisticated
epistemological beliefs are more likely to consult multiple sources, integrate ideas,
value different opinions and persist in the event of not being successful at first. Hofer
and Pintrich (1997) link epistemological beliefs to academic tasks that, over time,
shape epistemological beliefs. They suggest ‘. . . students who are given multiple
choice tests composed of low level items may come to view knowledge as a collection
of facts and learn to study for tests by using memorization and rehearsal strategies.
Moving to a class where higher-level processes are expected may require not only a
change in strategy use, but a change in epistemological theories’.
In work exploring dimensionality of student’s epistemology, Hofer (2000)
proposed the existence of domain-specific epistemological beliefs that differ from
general epistemological beliefs. In this work that compared the beliefs of science and
psychology students Hofer found that disciplinary differences in students’ epis-
temologies were strong. She concluded that ‘. . . 1st-year college students see
knowledge in science as more certain and unchanging than in psychology . . .’.
Support for domain differences for epistemological beliefs is also found in the work
of Paulsen and Wells (1998) who found that students studying in the ‘applied’ fields
were more likely to hold simple epistemological beliefs, while students majoring in
220 D. Tolhurst
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
otre
Dam
e] a
t 21:
21 2
6 A
ugus
t 201
4
‘soft, or pure fields’ were less likely to hold simple beliefs. There is growing evidence
that epistemological beliefs can be both general and domain specific (Quain &
Alvermann, 1995; Hofer & Pintrich, 1997; Paulsen & Wells, 1998; Hofer, 2000;
Schraw, 2001), although others contend that such differences do not exist
(Sternberg, 1989; Schommer-Aikins et al ., 2003).
Recognising that epistemological beliefs have an influence on students’ learning, it
is important to effective teaching in universities to consider how we can promote
more sophisticated beliefs about knowledge in students: beliefs that lead students to
view knowledge as complex, as requiring the integration of ideas and requiring task
persistence. How can we structure our curriculum, courses and learning environ-
ments to encourage the development of more sophisticated epistemological beliefs in
students that lead to greater personal involvement and acceptance of responsibility
for learning?
A research study by Brownlee et al . (2001) provides some encouragement for the
potential of influencing students’ epistemological beliefs through learning environ-
ments. Brownlee et al . conducted a study at the University of Queensland that shows
it is possible to influence students’ epistemological beliefs significantly and produce
positive learning outcomes. They measured students’ beliefs before and after a year-
long course of study. One group in the study was taught an educational psychology
course which required them to regularly reflect on their epistemological beliefs using
personal diaries. The other group studying educational psychology were not required
to undertake any reflection. Brownlee et al . found that the group involved in
reflective practice experienced a statistically significant shift to more complex
epistemological beliefs that those students who were not required to reflect. They
conclude that students’ epistemological beliefs can be influenced by learning
environments, and this has implications for how educators structure such learning
environments.
The findings of Brownlee et al . provided the motivation for a course revision
reported in this paper. Staff teaching first-year Information Systems undergraduates
observed that the lecture/tutorial format seemed to produce students that exhibited
characteristics that were indicative of simple epistemological beliefs. Staff questioned
whether the ‘delivery’ model of presenting information to large groups of students,
requiring passive ‘reception’ of information by students, was problematic. It
appeared to encourage reliance by students on lecturers as source of authority and
as a result students seemed to lack independence and did not appear to accept
responsibility for their own learning. There was a relatively low level of critical
thinking evidenced in students’ work, and on the whole students displayed relatively
simple epistemological beliefs.
This paper reports the changes made to the course structure that attempted to
develop students’ epistemological beliefs and describes a study that aimed to
measure changes in beliefs attributable to the new structure. The paper presents
findings and discusses the implications of this research for future curriculum design.
The influence of learning environments 221
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
otre
Dam
e] a
t 21:
21 2
6 A
ugus
t 201
4
New structure of the course
In an attempt to overcome the problems identified with the existing undergraduate
introductory Information Systems lecture/tutorial course structure, an altern-
ative structure was designed that aimed to minimise large lecture groups, encourage
students’ independent learning and also maximise the opportunity for student small-
group interactions that allowed students to actively engage with key concepts. The
kinds of activities designed placed an emphasis on the problem-based learning goals
as described by Biggs (1999), specifically: structuring knowledge for use; developing
reasoning processes; developing self-directed learning; increasing motivation for
learning; and developing group skills.
The new structure had at its focus web-supported independent activities (WSIA)
and regular small-group workshops. The lecture component was minimised to five
one-hour lectures during the session of fourteen weeks. These main components are
described in the ensuing sub-sections. This structure was adopted in the belief that
independent activities and small-group activities would engage students. Small-
group workshops offered many opportunities to establish collegiate groups of
students that are likely to develop closer relationships with workshop facilitators.
The WSIA were organised to precede the corresponding workshop (or lecture). Both
components, the independent activities and the workshops, were seen as enabling
students to accept a greater degree of responsibility for their own learning than was
the case in large lectures. A diagrammatic representation of the course structure is
shown in Figure 1.
Web Supported Independent Activities (WSIA)
Weekly activities required students to undertake regular independent work, as
specified on a course website. It was assumed that students had completed this work
Week
WSIA WSIA WSIA WSIA WSIA WSIA WSIA WSIA WSIA WSIA WSIA WSIA WSIA WSIA
Lect Lect WS WS WS Lect WS WS WS WS Lect WS WS Lect
Lab Access
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Note: WSIA = Web-supported Independent Activities done in preparation for the nextweek’s class. Lect = Lecture. WS = Workshop. Lab Access - computer laboratoryaccess to allow students to do WSIA, assistance also available in labs 4 hours per day.
Figure 1. Diagrammatic representation of the new course structure
222 D. Tolhurst
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
otre
Dam
e] a
t 21:
21 2
6 A
ugus
t 201
4
before attending the weekly formal class. The independent activities required
students to undertake tasks such as:
. making notes, answering questions, drawing diagrams, etc. based on readings;
. preparing hand-ins;
. reading journal articles;
. reading case studies, preparing responses to questions on the cases;
. undertaking self-paced skill-development in software use;
. completing on-line tutorials; and
. exploration of commercial, and informational websites.
In addition to the content-focused activities, the independent activities guided
students in finding information from a number of sources, with the extent of
supporting instructions diminishing over the time frame of the course. During the
course, students had to seek information from a number of sources, utilising:
. course website and the textbook publisher’s website;
. library catalogue, on-line databases and electronic journals;
. library closed-reserve and general collection; and
. commercial and informational websites.
The WSIA were intended to prepare students in the basics of a topic of study to be
explored later in either the workshops or lectures. Ideas and impressions gained by
students from the exploration of commercial websites (current uses and implemen-
tations of technology) were linked to the theoretical information that students read in
journal articles and textbook chapters. To additionally support learners, students
were explicitly referred to the learning support resources.
Laboratory access and support
To support the students undertaking their independent work a computer laboratory
was available. Students were not allocated laboratory class time, but were required to
manage their own time, using the laboratories at a time that suited them. Students
could also complete independent activities in any other location with internet access.
Students could seek assistance from laboratory demonstrators if they were having
difficulty locating information or using software.
Workshops
Eight workshops of 24 students (maximum) were held during the session. Workshops
were held in a room with flexible furniture, and the arrangement of the seating and
tables was varied from week to week depending on the activities undertaken that
week.
Each workshop was facilitated by an experienced member of staff who was able to
encourage open discussion and answer questions that may arise from the work
The influence of learning environments 223
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
otre
Dam
e] a
t 21:
21 2
6 A
ugus
t 201
4
students had undertaken in the WSIA. An important aspect of the workshops is that
workshops ran with the assumption that students had completed all the WSIA and
the workshop activities were designed to build on this work.
Workshops involved students in activities like:
. small and whole group discussions of activities from WSIA;
. case studies, ranging from cases analysed as a WSIA to cases presented and
analysed during the workshop;
. debates, prepared by groups of students and carried out during workshops;
. tutorial activity*/data modelling, create a diagram, concept mapping;
. quick quizzes marked by peers during the workshop;
. student presentations, either individual or group;
. short lecture-style ‘wrap-ups’; and
. videos and demonstrations of software or websites.
Lectures
Five one-hour lectures (with repeats) were held during the session. Lectures in the
first two weeks explained the course structure and introduced preliminary content
for the course (see Figure 1). Two lectures strategically placed in the session
discussed the integration of topics addressed in the course so far and introduced
topics for the weeks ahead. The final lecture provided a summary of the course
content and information about the final examination. Lectures also required students
to complete WSIA, and called upon that preparation.
Summary of the course structure
The weekly experience of students was to undertake the independent activities, and
attending either a workshop or lecture. The course structure was designed to benefit
students by:
. encouraging independent learning and small-group interaction;
. exposing students to current websites, readings, cases and other materials focusing
on real-world, up-to-date information;
. reducing class sizes to allow students and staff to develop closer relationships than
would occur in large-lecture situations;
. including activities in workshops and WSIA that enhanced students’ development
of skills in language and communication, research and referencing, information
literacy, group work; and
. including learning activities that catered to the diversity of student backgrounds
and learning styles.
224 D. Tolhurst
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
otre
Dam
e] a
t 21:
21 2
6 A
ugus
t 201
4
Structure of the course versus structure of the domain
Although this course was very structured in terms of the expectations of students
regarding preparation and attendance at classes, is was one that did not provide great
comfort for the students in terms of structure of the domain. Students found they
needed to make decisions regarding the depth and breadth of their preparation as the
WSIA were left open-ended to allow students to be challenged. Students did not
receive ‘closed’ outcomes as a result of the workshop sessions. Compared to walking
away with a set of lecture notes that clearly defined the ‘content coverage’, students
often left a workshop with questions to resolve in their minds. It was accepting the
challenge of struggling with the domain that was expected to influence students’
epistemological beliefs in some way.
Expected impacts of the new course structure on students’ epistemological beliefs and learning
It was anticipated students’ beliefs would be influenced by the new course structure,
moving students towards more sophisticated beliefs, beliefs that knowledge is more
complex, more tentative, derived by reason, and acquired gradually (Schommer,
1990). Factors in the new course structure expected to influence students’ beliefs
included the requirement that students research independently before attending
class. WSIA used multiple sources, sometimes conflicting ones. Students were
required to read and prepare, consulting multiple reliable sources. In workshops
students engaged with others on an intellectual level, supporting their discussion
points and opinions from credible sources, rather than relying on opinion and
hearsay. Students were challenged to develop their understanding of a complex
domain by grappling with the ideas in the literature and the ideas of their colleagues.
The lecturer was not the focus of classes, but a facilitator who guided activities. It was
anticipated that activities would illustrate to students the complexity of knowledge,
the need to consider multiple sources, the need to construct knowledge and that the
lecturer was not the only source of knowledge.
Description of the study
A study that explored the influence of this different course structure on students’
epistemological beliefs was undertaken in conjunction with the introduction of the
new course. Consistent with the approach of Brownlee et al . (2001) this study
measured students’ epistemological beliefs at the very beginning of the course, and
then again 12 weeks later.
Two questionnaires were used to measure students’ epistemological beliefs. As the
literature suggests, students may possess domain-specific in addition to general
epistemological beliefs. One questionnaire presented to students included a set of
items address general epistemological beliefs (Schommer, 1998) and another set of
items addressing domain specific epistemological beliefs (Hofer, 2000).
The influence of learning environments 225
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
otre
Dam
e] a
t 21:
21 2
6 A
ugus
t 201
4
Schommer’s ‘Epistemological Questionnaire’ (1998) is a 63-item questionnaire
that measures 5 epistemological dimensions, with 12 subscales. This questionnaire
measures ‘general’ epistemological beliefs and requires students to respond to
statements, expressing their agreement or disagreement on a five-point Likert scale.
Examples of items include: If scientists try hard enough, they can find the truth to
almost anything (certain knowledge); How much a person gets out of university
depends on the quality of their teacher (omniscient authority). Item values were
combined to produce values for the five dimensions identified by Schommer (1990):
certainty of knowledge, structure of knowledge, source of knowledge, control of
knowledge and speed of knowledge. Within the dimensions 13 subscales, as
identified by Schommer, are also calculated from combined item scores. Table 1
shows the 5 dimensions and 12 subscales (described fully in Schommer’s 1998
article).
Hofer’s Discipline Focused Epistemological Beliefs Questionnaire (2000) is an 18-
item questionnaire to measure domain specific epistemological beliefs. Hofer’s
questionnaire measures four ‘core epistemologies’ (see Table 2): certainty of
knowledge, justification of knowledge: personal; source of information: authority;
and attainment of truth. Samples of the items from Hofer’s questionnaire are: ‘Truth
is unchanging in this subject’ (certainty of knowledge); ‘If my personal experience
conflicts with ideas in the textbook, the textbook is probably right’ (Source of
information: authority). Hofer’s scale also require students to express their
agreement or disagreement on a five-point Likert scale. Item values were combined
to find values for each core epistemologies.
Students were asked to complete both questionnaires in the first lecture and again
in week 12, during a workshop session.
Students studying the course
A total of 418 students in first-year undergraduate course in Information Systems
participated in this study. The course was offered within a Bachelor of Commerce
degree programme, and is compulsory for first-year information systems majors and
accounting students. Quite a few students also take the course as an elective in other
degree programmes, including Computer Science, Engineering and Arts. The
backgrounds of students in this study were quite varied; approximately two-thirds
of the students are local (Australian), and one-third international (including Chinese,
Indonesian, Malaysian, European and American).
Results of the study
Epistemological questionnaires
Table 1 shows the results of pre- and post-test administration of Schommer’s
Epistemological Questionnaire, and Table 2 shows the results of pre- and post-test
administration of Hofer’s Domain Focused Epistemological Beliefs Questionnaire.
226 D. Tolhurst
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
otre
Dam
e] a
t 21:
21 2
6 A
ugus
t 201
4
Pair-wise deletion was used for missing data; if a student failed to complete an item
in a subscale, then their data were excluded for the whole subscale. Some students
did not complete both the pre- and post-tests due to absences, and some did not
complete all items in the questionnaires. Pair-wise deletion and absences resulted in
differences between the pre- and post-test Ns, and the Ns in the repeated measures.
As can be seen from Table 1, statistically significant differences were found
between pre-test and post-test means on 5 of the 13 subscales of Schommer’s
questionnaire of general beliefs. Trends in the development of more sophisticated
beliefs were found on two subscales. First, students’ belief in simple knowledge, in
particular students’ belief in seeking single answers, was significantly reduced
Table 1. Pre- and post-test means and standard deviations for Schommer’s Epistemological Beliefs
Questionnaire
Schommer’s
Epistemological Beliefs
Questionnaire (1998)
Student responsesp Value for repeated
measures
scales, subscales Pre-test (M, SD, N) Post-test (M, SD, N)(N)
Quick Learning
Learning is quick 2.79, 0.52 (n�397) 2.55, 0.58 (n�328) 0.14 (n�240)
Learn first time* 2.46, 0.63 (n�399) 2.52, 0.65 (n�333) 0.02 (n�249)
Concentrated effort is a
waste of time
2.60, 0.71 (n�399) 2.69, 0.73 (n�334) 0.09 (n�248)
Certain Knowledge
Avoid ambiguity 3.09, 0.62 (n�390) 3.15, 0.63 (n�332) 0.31 (n�243)
Knowledge is certain 2.88, 0.46 (n�394) 2.73, 0.50 (n�330) 0.63 (n�239)
Avoid integration 2.44, 0.35 (n�390) 2.89, 0.37 (n�329) 0.86 (n�237)
Innate Ability
Can learn how to learn*** 2.26, 0.52 (n�391) 2.37, 0.55 (n�330) 0.00 (n�240)
Success unrelated to hard
work
2.88, 0.46 (n�394) 2.34, 0.61 (n�325) 0.24 (n�233)
Ability to learn is innate 2.66, 0.72 (n�389) 2.73, 0.67 (n�326) 0.58 (n�233)
Omniscient Authority
Depend on authority* 3.02, 0.56 (n�396) 3.08, 0.56 (n�333) 0.04 (n�245)
Don’t criticise
authority***
2.30, 0.48 (n�394) 2.38, 0.49 (n�331) 0.00 (n�241)
Simple Knowledge
Seek single answers** 3.11, 0.33 (n�383) 3.05, 0.31 (n�327) 0.00 (n�228)
Avoid integration 2.44, 0.35 (n�390) 2.89, 0.37 (n�329) 0.86 (n�237)
Notes: Subscale range is 1�5, 5 represents strong agreement. * p B0.05, **p B0.01, ***p B0.001.
Reliability of 63-item scale: pre-test standardised item alpha�0.76, post-test standardised item
alpha�0.80.
The influence of learning environments 227
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
otre
Dam
e] a
t 21:
21 2
6 A
ugus
t 201
4
(mean�3.11 to 3.05, p�0.00). Students also had significantly increased beliefs
that it is possible to learn how to learn (mean 2.26 to 2.37, p�0.00). Less desirable
trends were found on two subscales, first that students’ belief that learning occurs in
the first instance (i.e. quickly) was significantly increased (mean�2.46 to 2.52, p�0.02). The second less desirable trend was that students’ belief in omniscient
authority was significantly increased on two subscales, depend on authority (mean�3.02 to 3.08, p�0.04) and don’t criticise authority (mean�2.30 to 2.38, p�0.00).
The results on Hofer’s domain specific beliefs questionnaire in Table 2 show a
significant increase for the source of knowledge as being authority (mean�2.96 to
3.04, p�0.00). An interesting detail on this scale as discussed by Hofer in her paper
(2000) is that authority was described as related to expert knowledge, texts and other
external authority (as compared to individual opinion and first-hand experience).
The trend regarding authority is consistent with the finding in Schommer’s scale
regarding ‘Don’t criticise authority’, although interestingly Hofer interprets ‘author-
ity’ as being all authoritative sources, not just the teacher. Also a significant finding
that supports the development of more sophisticated epistemological beliefs on
Hofer’s domain-specific questionnaire was that at post-test students view knowledge
as less certain and simple (mean�2.47 to 2.40, p�0.01).
Relationship between epistemological beliefs and achievement levels
Correlations between students’ final marks in the course and the post-test scales on
the questionnaires were examined. Final grades in the course were determined by a
Table 2. Pre- and Post-test means and standard deviations for Hofer’s Domain-Specific
Epistemological Beliefs Questionnaire
Hofer (2000) Domain
Focused Epistemological
Beliefs Questionnaire
Student responsesp Value for
repeated measures
Pre-test (M, SD, N) Post-test (M, SD, N)(N)
Certainty and simplicity of
knowledge**
2.47, 0.52 (n�370) 2.40, 0.51 (n�323) 0.01 (n�222)
Justification of knowing:
personala3.14, 0.60 (n�382) 3.34, 0.59 (n�318) 0.21 (n�224)
Source of knowledge:
Authorityb ***
2.96, 0.64 (n�400) 3.04, 0.62 (n�336) 0.00 (n�247)
Perceived attainability of truth 3.11, 0.78 (n�401) 3.06, 0.83 (n�341) 0.08 (n�251)
Notes: Subscale range is 1�5, 5 represents strong agreement. **p B0.01, ***p B0.001.aRepresents the view that knowing is justified by individual opinion or firsthand experience.bRelates specifically to expert knowledge, texts and other external authority as the source of
knowledge.
Reliability of 18-item scale: pre-test standardised item alpha�0.58, post-test standardised item
alpha�0.60.
228 D. Tolhurst
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
otre
Dam
e] a
t 21:
21 2
6 A
ugus
t 201
4
combination of formative and summative assessment. Formative assessment
strategies adopted included components of: a student portfolio based on WSIA;
participation in discussions; a debate; an assignment based on the use of software.
The summative component was a final examination, which contributed less than
50% to the final mark. Assessment strategies were designed to be consistent with the
philosophy of the course.
Significant negative correlations were found between the final course grades and
a number of the subscales on Schommer’s and Hofer’s instruments (see Table 3).
These significant negative correlations indicate that students with higher beliefs
on these subscales obtain lower marks in the course. For example, students
who believe that ‘Learning is quick’ or that one should ‘Avoid integration’, or
knowledge is ‘Simple and certain’, achieved final marks in the course that were
significantly lower. Conversely, students with more complex epistemological
beliefs, those who believe learning is not quick, requires integration, and that
knowledge is not certain nor simple, achieved higher final marks in the course.
The strongest negative correlation with final mark was found on Schommer’s
subscales ‘Learning is quick’ (�0.33) and ‘Avoid integration’ (�0.29). On Hofer’s
scales the highest negative correlation is with ‘Certainty and simplicity of know-
ledge’ (�0.31).
Table 3. Significant correlations between students’ final course results and Schommer (1998) and
Hofer (2000) Post-test Epistemological Questionnaire Subscales
Scale/subscale Correlation with students’
final course results
p Value of the
correlation
Schommer (1998)
Quick learning
Learning is quick �0.33*** 0.00
Learn first time �0.13* 0.04
Certain knowledge / simple knowledge
Avoid integration �0.29*** 0.00
Innate ability
Success unrelated to hard work �0.15* 0.03
Omniscient authority
Don’t criticise authority �0.15* 0.02
Hofer (2000)
Certainty and simplicity of knowledge �0.31*** 0.00
Source of knowledge: authority �0.13* 0.04
Note: *p B0.05, **p B0.01, ***p B0.001.
The influence of learning environments 229
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
otre
Dam
e] a
t 21:
21 2
6 A
ugus
t 201
4
Limitations of the study
This study does have some limitations. The absence of a control or comparison
group is a weakness that makes it difficult to make claims regarding the causal
outcomes from the study. This design was necessary because of ethical clearance
requiring that no students be disadvantaged by being in one of two groups
(experimental and control), which by design were believed to result in different
learning outcomes. Consequently, all students involved in the study were involved in
the implementation of the new course structure. Using data from groups involved in
previous implementations of the old structure (lecture/tutorial) for comparison
would not provide adequate experimental constraint as there would still be many
uncontrolled variables in two different implementations of the course.
As it is not possible to make claims about any direct causes for the outcomes of the
study due to the lack of a control group, there is the possibility that the changes that
occurred between the pre- and post-test results are attributable to uncontrolled
variables. For example, it could be claimed that the changes may have occurred as
part of the expected maturation of beginning university students experiencing their
first year of tertiary study, or that the complexity of the domain itself (Information
Systems) may have caused the changes found. The experiences of lecturers of
previous cohorts in lecture/tutorial course formats (described in the introduction)
tend to refute these potential claims, but of course there is no empirical evidence that
this is not the case. Repetition of the study in an environment permitting control and
experimental groups has an obvious potential to produce more robust findings
regarding the factors (and their interactions) that may have influenced the outcomes.
A factor that may also have impacted on the results from the epistemological
questionnaires was the high proportion of overseas students, many from Asian
nations. The questionnaires developed by Schommer and Hofer have been primarily
targeted and used in North American contexts. The impact of cultural differences on
the questionnaires is unclear, but Chan and Elliot (2002) have found differences in
the dimensions from data collected using Schommer’s questionnaires when it was
used with Hong Kong teacher education students. They attribute the differences to
cultural influences. Different learning approaches of Chinese learners to Western
learners have been recognised (Watkins & Biggs, 1996), approaches that may in turn
be reflected in epistemological beliefs not adequately measured by the questionnaires
used. As culturally sensitive versions of epistemological questionnaires were not
available, this was an uncontrolled variable in the study.
Discussion
The main focus of the study was to explore whether students’ beliefs would be
influenced by a new course structure. It was anticipated that students’ beliefs about
knowledge would become more complex, more tentative, and that students would
perceive knowledge as derived by reason and acquired gradually. These changes were
anticipated as emerging as a result of being involved in a course in which students
230 D. Tolhurst
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
otre
Dam
e] a
t 21:
21 2
6 A
ugus
t 201
4
were more actively involved in their own learning, where they were required to
research, read and prepare for each class, and then engage with others on an
intellectual level in workshops, and in which they were required to support any
discussion points and opinions from credible sources, rather than relying on opinion
and hearsay.
Although strong claims cannot be made that there were large changes in students’
epistemological beliefs in the duration of the 14-week course, an important result
from this study is that students’ epistemological beliefs were influenced in some way.
Statistically significant changes were found on some subscales in the 12 weeks
between the pre- and post-test scores. Although these statistically significant changes
in the means were found on a relatively small number of subscales, it is educationally
significant that there is some evidence of change in just 12 weeks in one course. If we
can influence students’ epistemological beliefs, as these results suggest, then it is
important that research attention is afforded to exploring how to best exploit this
potential. If previous research indicates that more complex beliefs result in higher
order learning skills and consequent improved learning outcomes (Brownlee et al .,
2001; Buehl & Alexander, 2001; Hofer, 2001; Schraw, 2001; Hofer & Pintrich,
2002; Tolhurst & Debus, 2002; Andre & Windshitl, 2003), then research into
curriculum design for a degree programme (rather than the restructure of just one
course) may produce more educationally significant findings. Perhaps this study lifts
the corner on a hidden opportunity, waiting to be fully developed.
An aspect to consider in terms of the education significance of these outcomes is
that although changes in the mean values between pre- and post-tests may seem
small in magnitude to the reader, large changes in magnitude for individuals are not
reflected in mean values. Perhaps there are individuals for whom there were some
personally highly significant changes in beliefs about knowledge and knowing that
impact on personal study habits and learning outcomes, changes that are not truly
indicated in the mean values.
The second important finding from this study is that students with more
sophisticated epistemological beliefs achieved higher results in their final grades for
the course. As identified in the earlier discussion of the literature, students’
epistemological beliefs do influence their learning. Evidence suggests they have an
effect on critical and higher-order thinking, problem-solving, task persistence and
motivation (Schommer, 1994; Jacobson & Spiro, 1995; Kardash & Scholes, 1996;
Schraw, 2001). Evidence from the present study provides some support for Schraw’s
prediction that ‘as (epistemological) beliefs change and become more sophisticated,
thinking and problem-solving skills improve as well’ (Schraw, 2001). If more
sophisticated epistemological beliefs are linked with higher student performance
levels, then there is further encouragement to explore ways to encourage the
development of more sophisticated epistemological beliefs.
The question that does arise from this research is, if we can influence students’
epistemological beliefs through course structure and the learning environments we
create, what are the characteristics of a course structure that may encourage the most
desirable outcomes regarding students’ beliefs, and hence desirable learning
The influence of learning environments 231
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
otre
Dam
e] a
t 21:
21 2
6 A
ugus
t 201
4
approaches and outcomes? The course structure at the focus of this research was
designed to create a learning environment that engaged students in active and
independent learning. Positive trends were found on some subscales, less desirable
outcomes on some subscales, and no change on others. Although this study did not
achieve all the changes in students’ epistemological beliefs it set out to, it did show
that students’ epistemological beliefs may be influenced in as short a time-period as
twelve weeks. This means that our courses have the potential to contribute to
students’ perceptions of knowledge and its nature in some way or another. All
educators need to consider the implicit message that they convey to students through
the structure of the courses they teach and the learning environments they create.
These structures and environments implicitly reflect the beliefs that lecturers have
regarding knowledge in their discipline, be they carefully considered or subconscious.
Epistemological beliefs do influence students’ approaches to learning and their
consequent learning outcomes. It is apparent from this research on students’
epistemological beliefs that further research is needed to determine features of a
facilitative programme and course structure and how to structure learning environ-
ments to support students’ development of sophisticated epistemological beliefs that
are associated with desirable learning approaches and outcomes. The inclusion of
qualitative data collection and analysis has the potential to provide additional insight
into those aspects that may result in changes in epistemological beliefs, and future
studies should include such features. It is also apparent that we need to consider the
messages we convey to our students implicitly through the course structures we
utilise, and the effects they might have on students’ learning.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Bob Baker, Ray Debus and reviewers for helpful comments on previous
versions. This project was funded by a Small Research Grant from the Faculty of
Commerce and Economics at UNSW, and in part by a First Year Teaching Grant
from the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Education) at UNSW.
References
Andre, T. & Windshitl, M. (2003) Interest, epistemological beliefs, and intentional conceptual
change, in: G. M. Sinatra & P. R. Pintrich (Eds) Intentional conceptual change (Mahwah, NJ,
Lawrence Erlbaum).
Biggs, J. (1999) Teaching for quality learning at university (Buckingham, Society for Research into
Higher Education & Open University Press).
Brownlee, J., Purdie, N. & Boulton-Lewis, G. (2001) Changing epistemological beliefs in pre-
service teacher education students, Teaching in Higher Education, 6, 247�268.
Buehl, M. M. & Alexander, P. A. (2001) Beliefs about academic knowledge, Educational Psychology
Review, 13, 385�418.
Chan, K-W. & Elliot, R. G. (2002) Exploratory study of Hong Kong teacher education students’
epistemological beliefs: cultural perspectives and implications for beliefs research, Con-
temporary Educational Psychology, 27, 392�414.
232 D. Tolhurst
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
otre
Dam
e] a
t 21:
21 2
6 A
ugus
t 201
4
Hofer, B. (2000) Dimensionality and differences in personal epistemology, Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 25, 378�405.
Hofer, B. (2001) Personal epistemology research: implications for teaching and learning,
Educational Psychology Review, 13, 353�383.
Hofer, B. & Pintrich, P. (1997) The development of epistemological theories: beliefs about
knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning, Review of Educational Research, 67,
88�140.
Hofer, B. & Pintrich, P. (2002) Personal epistemology: the psychology of beliefs about knowledge and
knowing (Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum).
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.
Kardash, C. M. & Scholes, R. J. (1996) Effects of preexisting beliefs, epistemological beliefs, and
need for cognition on interpretation of controversial issues, Journal of Educational Psychology,
88, 260�271.
Paulsen, M. B. & Wells, C. T. (1998) Domain differences in the epistemological beliefs of college
students, Research in Higher Education, 39, 365�384.
Quain, G. & Alvermann, D. (1995) Role of epistemological beliefs and learned helplessness in
secondary school students’ learning science concepts from text, Journal of Educational
Psychology, 87, 282�292.
Schommer, M. (1990) Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension, Journal
of Educational Psychology, 82, 498�504.
Schommer, M. (1994) Synthesising epistemological beliefs research: tentative understandings and
provocative confusions, Educational Psychology Review, 6(4), 293�319.
Schommer, M. (1998) The influence of age and education on epistemological beliefs, British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 551�562.
Schommer-Aikins, M., Duell, O. K. & Barker, S. (2003) Epistemological beliefs across domains
using Biglan’s Classification of Academic Disciplines, Research in Higher Education , 44,
347�366.
Schraw, G. (2001) Current themes and future directions on epistemological research: a
commentary, Educational Psychology Review, 13, 451�464.
Sternberg, R. J. (1989) Domain-generality versus domain-specificity: the life and impending death
of a false dichotomy, Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, Behaviour and Development, 35, 115�130.
Tolhurst, D. & Debus, R. L. (2002) The influence of prior knowledge, attitude, ability and activity
structure on students’ learning and use of software, Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 27, 275�313.
Watkins, D. A. & Biggs, J. B. (1996) The Chinese learner: cultural, psychological and contextual
influences (Melbourne, CERC and ACER).
The influence of learning environments 233
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
otre
Dam
e] a
t 21:
21 2
6 A
ugus
t 201
4
Recommended
