The impact of epistemology on learning: A case study from introductory physics

American Journal of Physics

Volumn 73, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 372-382

  Lising, Laura ^a,b   Elby, Andrew ^a  

^a Bldg 142   (United States)

^b TOWSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 17444427091     PISSN: 00029505     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1119/1.1848115     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. L. C. McDermott and E. F. Redish, "Resource letter PER-1: Physics education research," Am. J. Phys. 67, 755-767 (1999).
2. D. Hammer, "Epistemological beliefs in introductory physics," Cogn. Instruct. 12(2), 151-183 (1994).
3. E. E Redish, J. M. Saul, and R. N. Steinberg, "Student expectations in introductory physics," Am. J. Phys. 66, 212-224 (1998).
4. W.-M. Roth and A. Roychoudhury, "Physics students' epistemologies and views about knowing and learning," J. Res. Sci. Teach. 31(1), 5-30 (1994).
5. For clarity, we draw this distinction between metacognition and epistemology. Metacognition refers to awareness and manipulations of one's knowledge, such as monitoring one's understanding while reading a textbook and checking an answer for plausibility. Epistemology, in contrast, refers to ideas about the nature of knowledge and learning - viewing textbook physics knowledge as something that can be understood or "checking" as a way to reconcile qualitative and quantitative knowledge. A student's epistemology can help to drive which metacognitive strategies she does and does not use.
6. For a review, see B. K. Hofer and P. R. Pintrich, "The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning," Rev. Educ. Res. 67(1), 88-140 (1997).
7. M. Schommer, "Epistemological development and academic performance among secondary students," J. Educ. Psychol. 85(3), 406-411 (1993).
8. M. Schommer, A. Crouse, and N. Rhodes, "Epistemological beliefs and mathematical text comprehension: Believing it is simple does not make it so," J. Educ. Psychol. 84(4), 435-443 (1992).
9. N. B. Songer and M. C. Linn, "How do students' views of science influence knowledge integration?," J. Res. Sci. Teach. 28(9), 761-84 (1991).
10. G. Qian and D. E. Alvermann, "The role of epistemological beliefs and learned helplessness in secondary school students' learning science from text," J. Educ. Psychol. 82, 282-292 (1995).
11. D. B. May and E. Etkina, "College physics students' epistemological self-reflection and its relationship to conceptual learning," Am. J. Phys. 70(12), 1249-1258 (2002).
12. K. Hogan, "Relating students' personal frameworks for science learning to their cognition in collaborative contexts," Sci. Educ. 83, 1-32 (1999).
13. J. Ryder and J. Leach, "University science students' experiences of investigative project work and their images of science," Int. J. Sci. Educ. 21(9), 945-956 (1999).
14. R. Millar, F. Lubben, R. Gott, and S. Duggan, "Investigating in the school science laboratory: Conceptual and procedural knowledge and their influence on performance," Res. Pap. Educ. 9(2), 207-248 (1994).
15. M. Taylor-Robertson, "Use of videotape-stimulated recall interviews to study the thoughts and feelings of students in an introductory biology laboratory course," unpublished master's thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 1984.
16. K. M. Edmondson, "The influence of students' conceptions of scientific knowledge and their orientations to learning on their choices of learning strategy in a college introductory level biology course," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 1989.
17. C. S. Dweck, Self-Theories; Their Role in Personality, Motivation and Development (Psychology, Philadelphia, PA, 1999).
18. D. Hammer, "Two approaches to learning physics," Phys. Teach. 27, 664-671 (1989).
19. A. Elby, "Another reason physics students learn by rote," Am. J. Phys. 67(7), S52-S57 (1999).
20. D. R. Sokoloff and R. K. Thornton, "Using interactive lecture demonstrations to create an active learning environment," Phys. Teach. 35, 340-347 (1997).
21. The tutorials used were a mixture of University of Washington tutorials, L. C. McDermott, P. S. Schaffer, and the Physics Education Group, Tutorials in Introductory Physics (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2002), and tutorials written by the University of Maryland Physics Education Research Group. Tutorials lead students through a structured series of questions and activities usually aimed at developing qualitative conceptual understanding (rather than traditional problem solving) and often focusing on common student difficulties such as the difference between velocity and acceleration.
22. This paper and its appendices are available at 〈http://www.arxiv. org/abs/physics/0411007〉.
23. See D. Hammer, "Student resources for learning introductory physics," Am. J. Phys. 68(7), S52-S59 (2000), and D. Hammer and A. Elby, "On the form of a personal epistemology," in Personal Epistemology: The Psychology of Beliefs about Knowledge and Knowing, edited by B. K. Hofer and P. R. Pintrich (Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 2001), pp. 169-190.
24. See D. Hammer, "Student resources for learning introductory physics," Am. J. Phys. 68(7), S52-S59 (2000), and D. Hammer and A. Elby, "On the form of a personal epistemology," in Personal Epistemology: The Psychology of Beliefs about Knowledge and Knowing, edited by B. K. Hofer and P. R. Pintrich (Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 2001), pp. 169-190.
25. A paper about the context-sensitivity of Jan's epistemology is currently in preparation.
26. In addition to those 13 "strong" reconciles, Jan also displayed two instances of checking-only and four instances of compromise. Checking-only is when Jan made sure one line of reasoning agreed with the answer yielded by another line of reasoning, without reconciling or even comparing the two lines of reasoning. Compromises involve comparing two lines of reasoning but glossing over rather than addressing the contradictions. We mention these codings because they involve at least some kind of contact between two lines of reasoning, a contact noticeably absent in Jan's reasoning in the electric field tutorial episode.
27. She also displayed two instances of between-type checking-only, a coding category explained in Ref. 25. Even if we're generous about what is counted as reconciliation and therefore include compromises and checking-only instances in our final tallies, Jan's within-type reconciliation rate of 68% (19 of 28) is still much higher than her between-type reconciliation rate of 33% (3 of 9), supporting our hypothesis of a barrier in Jan's epistemology between formal and everyday/intuitive reasoning.
28. The details of the interrater reliability results and analysis can be found in the online appendix of this paper, Ref. 22.
29. Readers may wonder if some of the behavior we see on the videotape is due to the students' nervousness at being taped. Although the students agreed to tapings and the cameras are in plain view, we have evidence that they seem to forget about them. For example, a few minutes after Jan's "physics- oriented" comment, the group starts to discuss things more personal than we believe they would discuss in front of an instructor or researcher. (We did not watch or transcribe this portion of the video.)
30. S. Kanim, "Connecting concepts to problem-solving," Proceedings of the 2001 Physics Education Research Conference: Research at the Interface, Rochester, NY, 25-16 July 2001, pp. 37-40.
31. We do not dispute Kanim's claim that new conceptual difficulties keep appearing. But we think that's only part of the problem. In many cases, the epistemological barrier between formal and everyday/intuitive knowledge may make it especially difficult for students to spot and resolve what would otherwise be fairly easy conceptual problems.
32. D. Hammer and A. Elby, "Tapping epistemological resources for learning physics." J. Learn. Sci. 12(1), 53-90 (2003); A. Elby, "Helping physics students learn how to learn," Am. J. Phys. 69(7), S54-S64 (2001); E. F. Redish, "Developing student expectations in algebra-based physics," presentation at the Conference on Integrating Science and Math Education Research, Orono, ME, June, 2002, 〈http://www. physics.umd.edu/perg/talks/redish/Maine02/EFRMaineExpects.pdf〉.
33. D. Hammer and A. Elby, "Tapping epistemological resources for learning physics." J. Learn. Sci. 12(1), 53-90 (2003); A. Elby, "Helping physics students learn how to learn," Am. J. Phys. 69(7), S54-S64 (2001); E. F. Redish, "Developing student expectations in algebra-based physics," presentation at the Conference on Integrating Science and Math Education Research, Orono, ME, June, 2002, 〈http://www. physics.umd.edu/perg/talks/redish/Maine02/EFRMaineExpects.pdf〉.
34. D. Hammer and A. Elby, "Tapping epistemological resources for learning physics." J. Learn. Sci. 12(1), 53-90 (2003); A. Elby, "Helping physics students learn how to learn," Am. J. Phys. 69(7), S54-S64 (2001); E. F. Redish, "Developing student expectations in algebra-based physics," presentation at the Conference on Integrating Science and Math Education Research, Orono, ME, June, 2002, 〈http://www. physics.umd.edu/perg/talks/redish/Maine02/EFRMaineExpects.pdf〉.