Adaptation of Internet-Specific Epistemic Justification Inventory to Turkish Culture in the Context of History Teaching

Year 2020, Volume: 9 Issue: 1, 152 - 169, 24.05.2020

Servet Üztemur Erkan Dinç

https://doi.org/10.17497/tuhed.683267

Cited By: 1

Abstract

The aim of this research is
to adapt the “Internet-Specific Epistemic Justification Inventory” to Turkish
culture and conduct validity and reliability tests. Due to the wide scope of
knowledge obtained from the internet, the subject focus of this research is
limited to historical knowledge accessed via the internet. The study was
conducted with the participation of 192 randomly selected prospective social
studies teachers continuing their education at Uşak and Necmettin Erbakan
Universities in the 2019-2020 academic year. The results of confirmatory factor
analysis and alpha internal consistency calculations revealed that the
three-dimensional (personal justification, justification by multiple sources
and justification by authority) structure of the 12-item inventory is valid and
reliable in Turkish culture. The research results were discussed in the context
of epistemic justification strategies and historical reasoning and historical
contextualization skills adopted by young people in the process of testing the
accuracy of knowledge claims they encounter in the web in post-truth times when
the internet is used as a source of knowledge.

Keywords

History Teaching, Epistemic Justification, Post-truth Times, Social Studies, Historical Contextualization

Tarih Öğretimi Bağlamında İnternete Özgü Epistemik Gerekçelendirme Ölçeğinin Türk Kültürüne Uyarlaması

Abstract

Bu
araştırmanın amacı “İnternete Özgü Epistemik Gerekçelendirme Ölçeği”ni Türk
kültürüne uyarlayarak geçerlik ve güvenilirlik çalışmalarını yapmaktır.
İnternetten edinilen bilgilerin kapsamının çok geniş olması nedeniyle, bu
araştırmada konu alanı internet üzerinden erişilen tarihsel bilgiler ile
sınırlandırılmıştır. Çalışma Uşak ve Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitelerinde
2019-2020 öğretim yılında öğrenimine devam eden rastgele seçilmiş 192 sosyal
bilgiler öğretmen adayıyla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ve
alfa iç tutarlılık hesaplamaları sonuçları, 12 maddelik ölçeğin üç boyutlu
(kişisel gerekçelendirme, çoklu kaynaklar tarafından gerekçelendirme ve otorite
tarafından gerekçelendirme) orijinal yapısının Türk kültüründe geçerli ve
güvenilir olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Araştırma sonuçları; internetin bilgi
kaynağı olarak kullanıldığı post-truth zamanlarda, gençlerin web ortamında
karşılaştıkları bilgi iddialarının doğruluğunu sınama sürecinde benimsedikleri
epistemik gerekçelendirme stratejileri ile tarihsel muhakeme ve tarihsel
bağlamsallaştırma becerileri bağlamında tartışılmıştır.   

Keywords

Tarih Öğretimi, Epistemik Gerekçlenedirme, Post-truth Zamanlar, Sosyal Bilgiler

References

• Aşkar, P., & Mazman, S. G. (2013). Adaptation of online information searching strategy inventory into Turkish. Education and Science, 38(168), 167–182.
• Brandmo, C., & Braten, I. (2018). Investigating relations between beliefs about justification for knowing, interest, and knowledge across two socio-scientific topics. Learning and Individual Differences, 62, 89–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.01.010
• Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Samuelstuen, M. S. (2008). Are sophisticated students always better? The role of topic-specific personal epistemology in the understanding of multiple expository texts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(4), 814-840.
• Braten, I., Ferguson, L. E., Strømsø, H. I., & Anmarkrud, Ø. (2013). Justification beliefs and multiple-documents comprehension. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28, 879–902. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-012-0145-2
• Braten, I., Ferguson, L. E., Strømsø, H. I., & Anmarkrud, Ø. (2014). Students working with multiple conflicting documents on a scientific issue: Relations between epistemic cognition while reading and sourcing and argumentation in essays. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 58–85. doi:10.1111/bjep.12005
• Bråten, I., Brandmo, C., & Kammerer, Y. (2019). A validation study of the internet-specific epistemic justification inventory with Norwegian preservice teachers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(4), 877-900.
• Braten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Samuelstuen, M. S. (2005). The relationship between Internet-specific epistemological beliefs and learning within Internet technologies. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33, 141–171.
• Chinn, C.A., Buckland, L.A., and Samarapungavan, A. (2011). Expanding the dimensions of epistemic cognition: Arguments from philosophy and psychology. Educational Psychologist, 46, 141-167. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.587722
• Chiu, Y.-L., Liang, J.-C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2013). Internet-specific beliefs and self-regulated learning in online academic information searching. Metacognition and Learning, 8, 235–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-013-9103-x
• Chiu, Y. L., Tsai, C. C., & Liang, J. C. (2015). Testing measurement invariance and latent mean differences across gender groups in college students’ Internet-specific epistemic beliefs. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(4), 486–499.
• Cho, B. Y., Han, H., & Kucan, L. L. (2018). An exploratory study of middle-school learners’ historical reading in an internet environment. Reading and Writing, 31(7), 1525-1549.
• Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G. & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2014). Çok değişkenli istatistik SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları. (3. baskı). Ankara: Pegem.
• Dinç, E. ve Üztemur, S. (2019). Ortaokul öğrencileri ve öğretmenlerinin bilginin gerekçelendirilmesi sürecinde benimsedikleri epistemik inançlarının karşılaştırmalı nitel analizi. Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education, 8(2), 361-405. http://dx.doi.org/10.30703/cije.471871
• Dinç, E. ve Üztemur, S. (2018). Tarihsel bakış açısı edinme ölçeğinin Türkçeye uyarlanması ve tarih ve sosyal bilgiler öğretmen adaylarının tarihsel bakış açısı edinme becerilerinin incelenmesi. Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International, 8(2), 478-518. DOI: 10.18039/ajesi.454643
• Doğan, N., Soysal, S., & Karaman, H. (2017). Aynı örnekleme açımlayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizi uygulanabilir mi?. Ö. Demirel ve S. Dinçer (edt). Küreselleşen dünyada eğitim. (373-400). Ankara: Pegem.
• Dong, Y., Liang, J. C., Yu, Y. Y., Wu, J. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2015). The relationships between Chinese higher education students’ epistemic beliefs and their judgmental standards of searching for literature online: Undergraduate versus graduate comparisons. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(2), 250–266.
• Ferguson, L. E., & Bråten, I. (2013). Student profiles of knowledge and epistemic beliefs: Changes and relations to multiple-text comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 25, 49-61.
• Ferguson, L. E., Braten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2012). Epistemic cognition when students read multiple documents containing conflicting scientific evidence: A think-aloud study. Learning and Instruction, 22, 103–120
• Ferguson, L. E., Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Anmarkrud, Ø. (2013). Epistemic beliefs and comprehension in the context of reading multiple documents: Examining the role of conflict. International Journal of Educational Research, 62, 100–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2013.07.001
• Foster, S., & Yeager, E. A. (2001). The role of empathy in the development of historical understanding. O. L. Davis, E. A. Yeager, & S. Foster (Eds.). Historical empathy and perspective taking in the social studies (pp. 13–21). Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield.
• Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education. (8th edt). New York: McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages.
• Gestsdóttir, S. M., van Boxtel, C., & van Drie, J. (2018). Teaching historical thinking and reasoning: Construction of an observation instrument. British Educational Research Journal, 44(6), 960-981.
• Greene, J.A., Azevedo, R., and Torney-Purta, J. (2008). Modeling epistemic and ontological cognition: Philosophical perspectives and methodological directions. Educational Psychologist, 43, 142-160. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520802178458
• Greene, J.A., Torney-Purta, J., and Azevedo, R. (2010). Empirical evidence regarding relations among a model of epistemic and ontological cognition, academic performance, and educational level. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 234-255 http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0017998
• Hartmann, U., & Hasselhorn, M. (2008). Historical perspective taking: A standardized measure for an aspect of students’ historical thinking. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(2), 264–270.
• Hofer, B. K. (2004). Exploring the dimensions of personal epistemology in differing classroom contexts: Student interpretations during the first year of college. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(2), 129-163.
• Hofer, B. K. (2006). Domain specificity of personal epistemology: Resolved questions, persistent issues, new models. International Journal of Educational Research, 45(1-2), 85-95.
• Hofer, B. and Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88-144. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543067001088
• Huijgen, T., Van Boxtel, C., Van de Grift, W., & Holthuis, P. (2017). Toward historical perspective taking: Students’ reasoning when contextualizing the actions of people in the Past. Theory & Research in Social Education, 45, 110–144.
• Huijgen, T., Grift, W., van Boxtel, C., & Holthuis, P. (2018): Promoting historical contextualization: the development and testing of a pedagogy. Journal of Curriculum Studies. Doi: 10.1080/00220272.2018.1435724
• Huijgen, T., Van Boxtel, C., Van de Grift, W., & Holthuis, P. (2014). Testing elementary and secondary school students’ ability to perform historical perspective taking: The constructing of valid and reliable measure instruments. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 29, 653–672. doi:10.1007/s10212-014-0219-4
• Kammerer, Y., Amann, D. G., & Gerjets, P. (2015). When adults without university education search the Internet for health information: The roles of Internet-specific epistemic beliefs and a source evaluation intervention. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 297-309.
• Kammerer, Y., Braten, I., Gerjets, P., & Stromso, H. I. (2013). The role of Internet specific epistemic beliefs in laypersons’ source evaluations and decisions during Web search on a medical issue. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 1193–1203.
• Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. (3. Edition). New York/London: The Guilford Press.
• Knight, S., Rienties, B., Littleton, K., Mitsui, M., Tempelaar, D., & Shah, C. (2017). The relationship of (perceived) epistemic cognition to interaction with resources on the internet. Computers in Human Behavior, 73, 507-518.
• Köymen, B., Rosenbaum, L. & Tomasello, M. (2014). Reasoning during joint decisionmaking by preschool peers. Cognitive Development, 32, 74-85.
• Kuhn, D., Cheney, R. & Weinstock, M. (2000). The development of epistemological understanding. Cognitive Development, 15(3), 309-328.
• Lee, R., Looi, K. H., Khan, H., Soong, H., & Neale, L. (2019). Measuring students' justificatory reasoning approaches. Issues in Educational Research, 29(3), 807.
• Licht, M. H. (1995). Multiple regression and correlation. I. L. G. Grimm & P. R. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and understanding multivariate statistics. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• Monte-Sano, C. (2011). Beyond reading comprehension and summary: Learning to read and write in history by focusing on evidence, perspective, and interpretation. Curriculum Inquiry, 41(2), 212–249.
• Mason, L., Boldrin, A., & Ariasi, N. (2010). Searching the Web to learn about a controversial topic: Are students epistemically active? Instructional Science, 38(6), 607–633.
• Nagel, J. (2015). The social value of reasoning in epistemic justification. Episteme, 12(2), 297-308. https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2015.4
• Pearcy, M. (2014). Student, teacher, professor: Three perspectives on online education. The History Teacher, 47 (2), 169-185.
• Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 498-504.
• Soong, H., Lee, R. & John, G. (2012). Cultural differences in justificatory reasoning. Educational Review, 64(1), 57-76. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2011.571764
• Strømsø, H. I., & Bra˚ ten, I. (2010). The role of personal epistemology in self-regulation of Internet-based learning. Metacognition and Learning, 5, 91-111.
• Şimşek, A. ve Yalı, S. (2019). Gerçekte(n) öyle mi olmuş: post truth zamanlarda tarihin temsili. İstanbul: Yeni insan.
• Tavşancıl, E. (2019). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi. (6. Baskı). Ankara: Nobel.
• Tezbaşaran, A. (2008). Likert tipi ölçek hazırlama kılavuzu. Üçüncü Sürüm e-Kitap. Türk Psikologlar Derneği.
• Trochim, W. M.,& Donnelly, J. P. (2006). The research methods knowledge base (3. bs.). Cincinnati, OH: Atomic Dog.
• Tsai, M.J. (2009). Online information searching strategy ınventory (OISSI): A quick version and a complete version. Computers & Education 53. 473–483.
• Vansledright, B., & Reddy, K. (2014). Changing epistemic beliefs? An exploratory study of cognition among prospective history teachers. Revista Tempo e Argumento, Florianópolis, v. 6, n.11, p. 28-68, jan./abr. 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.5965/2175180306112014028
• van Drie, J., & van Boxtel, C. (2008). Historical reasoning: Towards a framework for analyzing students’ reasoning about the past. Educational Psychology Review, 20(2), 87–110.
• Wineburg, S. (1991). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 73–87.
• Wineburg, S. (1998). Reading Abraham Lincoln: An expert/expert study in the interpretation of historical texts. Cognitive Science, 22(3), 319–346.
• Whitmire, E. (2004). The relationship between undergraduates’ epistemological beliefs, reflective judgment, and their information-seeking behavior. Information Processing & Management, 40(1), 97–111.