A Meta Analytical Review of the Relationship between Personal Epistemology and Self-regulated Learning

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 2, 48 - 67, 30.04.2017

Muhammet Mustafa Alpaslan Bugrahan Yalvac Victor Willson

https://doi.org/10.19128/turje.287472

Cited By: 2

Öz

This meta-analysis examines
the relationship between epistemological beliefs and self-regulated learning.
It analyzes the result of forty-five studies conducted various countries in
discipline. A small but significant mean effect size emerged (r=.24 [SE=.012]
under fixed effects model, and r=.22 [SE=.026] under random effects model). Although
the effect of age on the relation of the two is not statistically significant,
moderator analyses revealed statistically significant effects of the culture,
gender, and subject area inferred from the reviewed studies on the
relationship. The results highlight the need for further research into how
culture and subject area influence students’ epistemological beliefs and
self-regulated learning.  The
implications and future directions are discussed..

Anahtar Kelimeler

Culture, Gender, Meta-analysis, Personal epistemology, Self-regulated learning

Epistemolojik inançlar ve öz-düzenleyici öğrenme: Bir meta-analitik inceleme

Öz

Son yıllarda
araştırmacılar epistemolojik inançları öz-düzenleyici öğrenme stratejileri ile
ilişkilendirmeye başlamıştır. Dolayısıyla epistemolojik inançlar ile
öz-düzenleyici öğrenme stratejileri arasındaki ilişkinin alan yazında yapılan
çalışmalarla nasıl desteklendiğine dair bir derleme (meta-analiz) çalışmasına
ihtiyaç vardır. Bu meta-analiz çalışmasının iki amacı vardır: a) epistemolojik
inançlar ile öz-düzenleyici stratejiler arasındaki ilişki için ortalama etki
büyüklüğü hesaplamak ve b) hesaplanan etki büyüklüğüne yaş, cinsiyet, kültür ve
konu alanı gibi moderatör değişkenlerin etkisini incelemektir. Bu amaçla farklı
ülkelerde ve konu alanlarında yapılmış olan toplam 45 çalışma (40 makale)
incelenmiştir. Analiz sonucunda küçük fakat anlamlı bir ortalama etki büyüklüğü
hesaplanmıştır (sabit etki modeli altında, r=.24 [SE=.012] ve rasgele etki
modeli altında r=.22 [SE=.026]). İki değişken arasındaki ilişki farklı okul
seviyesinde yapılan çalışmalar arasında değişmemesine rağmen, hesaplanan etki
büyüklüğünün kültür, cinsiyet ve konu alanı değişkenlerine göre anlamlı düzeyde
farklılık gösterdiği bulunmuştur. Elde edilen sonuçlar cinsiyetin, kültürün ve
konu alanının epistemolojik inançlar ile öz-düzenleyici stratejiler arasındaki
ilişkiyi nasıl etkilediğini açıklayan teorik modellere ve çalışmalara ihtiyaç olduğunu
göstermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kültür, Cinsiyet, Meta-analiz, Epistemolojik inançlar, Öz-düzenleyici stratejiler

Kaynakça

• Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender related patterns in students' intellectual development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Belenky, M., Clinchy, B., Goldberger, N., R., & Tarule, J. (1997). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, mind, and voice. New York: Basic Books.
• Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in academic areas, Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 195–203.
• Borenstein, M., Hedges, L.V., Higgins, J.P.T., & Rothstein, H.R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. West Sussex, U.K.: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
• Bråten, I., Ferguson, L. E., Anmarkrud, Ø., Strømsø, H. I., & Brandmo, C. (2014). Modeling relations between students’ justification for knowing beliefs in science, motivation for understanding what they read in science, and science achievement. International Journal of Educational Research, 66, 1- 12.
• Bråten, 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. doi:10.1007/s10212-012-0145-2.
• Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2005). The relationship between epistemological beliefs, implicit theories of intelligence, and self-regulated learning among Norwegian postsecondary students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 539–565.
• Bromme, R., Pieschl, S., & Stahl, E. (2010). Epistemological beliefs are standards for adaptive learning: A functional theory about epistemological beliefs and metacognition. Metacognition and Learning, 5(1), 7-26.
• Buehl, M. M. (2008). Assessing the multidimensionality of students’ epistemic beliefs across diverse cultures. In M. S. Khine (Eds.), Knowing, knowledge and beliefs: Epistemological studies across diverse cultures. (pp.65- 112) Netherlands: Springer.
• Buehl, M. M., & Alexander, P. A. (2005). Motivation and performance differences in students’ domain-specific epistemological belief profiles. American Education Research Journal, 42, 697–726.
• Buehl, M. M., Alexander, P. A., & Murphy, P. K. (2002). Beliefs about schooled knowledge: Domain specific or domain general? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 415–449.
• Cheung, M.W.-L. (2008). A model for integrating fixed-, random-, and mixed-effects meta-analyses into structural equation modeling. Psychological Methods, 13, 182-202.
• Cheung, M.W.-L. (2013). Multivariate meta-analysis as structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 20, 429-454.
• Chen, J. A. (2012). Implicit theories, epistemic beliefs, and science motivation: A person-centered approach. Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 724-735.
• Chinn, C. A., Buckland, L. A., & Samarapungavan, A. (2011). Expanding the dimensions of epistemic cognition: Arguments from philosophy and psychology. Educational Psychologist, 46, 141–167.
• Clinchy, B. M. (2002). Revisiting women's ways of knowing. In B. K. Hofer and P. R. Pintrich (Eds). Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Mahwah, N.J., L. Erlbaum Associates: 63-88.
• Cooper, H. (2010). Research synthesis and meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Cooper, H., Robinson, J. C., & Patall, E. A. (2006). Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research, 1997-2003. Review of Educational Research, 76, 1-62.
• Corey, D. M., Dunlap, W. P., & Burke, M. J. (1998). Observed and expected bias in average correlation with and without using Fisher's z transformation. Journal of General Psychology, 125, 245-261.
• Credé, M., & Philips, A. L. (2011). A meta-analytic review of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 337–346.
• Dahlin, B., & Watkins, D. (2000). The role of repetition in the process of memorizing and understanding: A comparison of the views of German and Chinese secondary school students in Hong Kong. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 65-84.
• Davis T. L. (1995). Gender differences in masking negative emotions: ability or motivation? Developmental Psychology, 31, 660–667.
• Dignath, C., & Büttner, G. (2008). Components of fostering self-regulated learning among students. A metaanalysis on intervention studies at primary and secondary school level. Metacognition and Learning, 3(3), 231-264.
• Dignath, C., Buettner, G., & Langfeldt, H. (2008). How can primary school students learn self-regulated learning strategies most effectively? A meta-analysis on self-regulation training programmes. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 101-129.
• Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham: Open University Press.
• Elby, A. & Hammer, D. (2010). Epistemological resources and framing: A cognitive framework for helping teachers interpret and respond to their students’ epistemologies. In L. D. Bendixen & F. C. Feucht (Eds.), Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, and implications for practice (pp. 409-434). New York: Cambridge Press.
• Elder, A. (2002). Characterizing fifth grade students’ epistemological beliefs in science. In B. K. Hofer & P.R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 347- 364). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Ferguson, L. E. (2015). Epistemic beliefs and their relation to multiple-text comprehension: A Norwegian program of research, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 59(6), 731-752, DOI: 10.1080/00313831.2014.971863.
• Ferguson, L. E., & Braten, 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., Bråten, 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. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.08.002
• 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. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2013.07.001
• Feucht, F., & Bendixen, L. (2010). Personal epistemology in the classroom: a welcome and guide for the reader. In L. Bendixen and F. Feucht (Eds.). Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, and implications for practice (pp. 3-29). New York: Cambridge Press. Galotti, K., Drebus, D., & Reimer, R. (1999, April). Ways of knowing as learning styles. The Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Albuquerque, NM.
• Greene, J. A., Azevedo, R., & Torney-Purta, J. (2008). Modeling epistemic and ontological cognition: Philosophical perspectives and methodological directions. Educational Psychologist, 43, 142–160.
• Hammer, D. & Elby, A. (2002). On the form of a personal epistemology. In B. K. Hofer, & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs aboutknowledge and knowing (pp. 169-190). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Hofer, B. K. (2000). Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in personal epistemology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 378–405.
• Hofer, B. K. (2004). Epistemological understanding as a metacognitive process: Thinking aloud during online searching. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 43-55.
• Hofer, B. K. (2008). Personal epistemology and culture. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing, knowledge and beliefs: epistemological studies across diverse cultures (pp. 3–22). Dordrecht: Springer.
• Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88–140.
• Hunter, J.E. & Schmidt, F.L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
• Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oak, CA: Sage.
• Muis, K. R. (2007). The role of epistemic beliefs in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 42, 173–190.
• Muis, K. R., Bendixen, L. D., & Haerle, F. (2006). Domain-generality and domain-specificity in personal epistemology research: Philosophical and empirical reflections in the development of a theoretical framework. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 3–54.
• Neber, H., & Schommer-Aikins, M. (2002). Self-regulated science learning with highly gifted students: The role of cognitive, motivational, epistemological, and environmental variables. High Ability Studies, 13(1), 59- 74.
• Nussbaum, E. M. (2011). Argumentation, dialogue theory, and probability modeling: Alternative frameworks for argumentation research in education. Educational Psychologist, 46(2), 84–106.
• Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1999). The role of self-regulated learning in contextual teaching: Principles and practices for teacher preparation. CIERA archive # 01-03. Retrieved on January 26, 2013, from http://www.ciera.org/library/archive/2001-04/0104prwn.pdf.
• Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
• Phillips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5–12.
• Pintrich, P. R., (1995). Understanding self-regulated learning. In: Pintrich, P. R. (ed.), Understanding selfregulated learning, new directions for teaching and learning, (pp. 3–12). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Future challenges and directions for theory and research on personal epistemology. In: Hofer, B. K., and Pintrich, P. R. (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing, (pp. 389–414), Maswah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
• Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, MI: National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.
• Purdie, N., Hattie, J., & Douglas, G. (1996). Student conceptions of learning and their use of self-regulated learning strategies: a cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 87-100.
• Sandoval, W. A. (2009). In defense of clarity in the study of personal epistemology. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(1), 150-161.
• Schoenfeld, A. H. (1989). Exploration of students’ mathematical beliefs and behavior. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 338–355.
• Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 498-504.
• Schraw, G., Brownlee, J. & Berthelsen, D. (2010). Teachers’ personal epistemology and teacher education: emergent themes and future research. In J. Brownlee, G. Schraw, & D. Berthelsen (Eds.). Personal epistemology and teacher education (pp. 265–281), New York, NY: Routledge.
• Sen, S. & Akbas, N. (2016). A study on multilevel meta-analysis methods. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 7, 1-17.
• Sinatra, G. M. (2005). The warming trend in conceptual change research: The legacy of Paul R. Pintrich. Educational Psychologist, 40, 107–115.
• Topçu, M. S. (2013). Preservice teachers’ epistemological beliefs in physics, chemistry, and biology: A mixed study. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11, 433–458.
• Tsai, C.C. (2006). Biological knowledge is more tentative than physics knowledge: Taiwan high school adolescents’ views about the nature of biology and physics. Adolescence, 41, 691-703.
• Willson, V. L. (1982). Maximizing reliability in multiple choice questions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 42, 69-72.
• Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D.J. Hacker & J. Dunlosky (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice: The educational psychology series. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Wolters, C., & Pintrich, P. R. (1998). Contextual differences in student motivation and self-regulated learning in mathematics, English, and social studies classrooms. Instructional Science, 26, 27-47.
• Yeaton, W. H., & Wortman, P. M. (1993). On the reliability of metaanalytic reviews: The role of intercoder agreement. Evaluation Review, 17, 292–309
• Yumusak, N., Sungur, S. and Cakiroglu, J. (2007). Turkish high school students' biology achievement in relation to academic self-regulation. Educational Research and Evaluation: An International Journal on Theory and Practice, 13(1), 53-69.
• Zimmerman, B., J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner, Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13- 35). San Diego: Academic Press.
• Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166-183.
• Zimmerman, B. J., & Pons, M. M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for assessing student use of selfregulated learning strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 23(4), 614–628.