See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/226415069

Teachers' Epistemic Authority: Perceptions of Students and Teachers

Article  in  Social Psychology of Education · January 2003

DOI: 10.1023/A:1021724727505

CITATIONS READS

35 495

5 authors, including:

Amiram Raviv Daniel Bar-Tal

Tel Aviv University, and The College of Law & Business, Ramat Gan Tel Aviv University
98 PUBLICATIONS   3,693 CITATIONS    308 PUBLICATIONS   11,043 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

self censorship, political socialization of young age in the context intractable conflict, paradoxical thinking, education to critical thinking in the context of intractable
conflict, , View project

Political socialization of young children in intractable conflicts: Conception and evidence View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Amiram Raviv on 25 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Social Psychology of Education 6: 17–42, 2003.
17
© 2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Teachers’ epistemic authority: perceptions

of students and teachers

AMIRAM RAVIV1,∗, DANIEL BAR-TAL2, ALONA RAVIV3 , BRAHA BIRAN2

and ZVIA SELA2
1 Department of Psychology, 2 School of Education, 3 Department of Statistics and Operations
Research, Tel Aviv University, 69978, Tel Aviv, Israel

Abstract. The present study examines students’ perception of the teacher’s role as epistemic authori-
ties, that is, a source of determinative influence on the formation of individuals’ knowledge, from
three perspectives. First, it examines 7th and 10th graders’ perception of their teachers as epistemic
authorities. The results showed that a teacher’s subject matter, as well as students’ age and gender,
influence perception of him/her as an epistemic authority. In addition, interest in the subject matter
was found to be an important predictor of students’ perception. The second part focuses on teachers’
self-perceptions as epistemic authorities. The results indicated that teachers’ personal efficacy is the
most powerful predictor of their self-perception. Finally, the study compares students’ perceptions of
teachers as epistemic authorities, teachers’ self-perceptions in these terms and teachers’ perceptions
of how their students perceive them. Two main findings showed the following: (a) teachers perceive
themselves as being more of an epistemic authority than their students consider them; (b) teachers
believe that students perceive them as being more of an epistemic authority than the students actually
think.

1. Introduction
One of a teacher’s principal roles is to transmit knowledge to students (Strauss,
1993). Whether or not they are successful in this depends, among other factors, on
students’ perceptions of teachers as reliable sources of information. Lay epistemic
theory (Kruglanski, 1989, 1990), which describes knowledge acquisition, directly
contributes to our understanding of teachers’ role as a source of knowledge. In its
discussion of the factors that affect knowledge acquisition, the theory introduces
the concept of epistemic authority, which denotes a source that exerts determinative
influence on the formation of individuals’ knowledge.
The concept epistemic authority was originally presented as a factor in the pro-
cess of knowledge formation through which individuals receive information per-
ceived as valid and, consequently, stop seeking alternative knowledge (Kruglanski,
1989). Individuals trust information dispensed by epistemic authorities, assimilate
it into their own repertoire and rely on it. In this respect, epistemic authorities, as
reliable sources of knowledge, define the scope of legitimate, truthful, and factual
∗ Author for Correspondence: Tel.: 972-3-6407948; Fax: 972-3-6409547;
E-mail: raviv@post.tau.ac.il
18 AMIRAM RAVIV ET AL.

information and enable individuals to construct their own knowledge. The lay
epistemic theory suggests that any source can potentially become an epistemic
authority to the extent that the individual considers him/her/it to possess those char-
acteristics that turn this source into such an authority. Thus, only an individual’s
subjective beliefs determine who is to be considered an epistemic authority. There
are individuals who believe, for example, that people who assume certain roles,
such as priests or teachers, are by the nature and definition of their roles, epistemic
authorities. There are others who rely on particular individuals whose knowledge
they trust. An epistemic authority such as a rabbi may be perceived as having valid
knowledge in all, or most, domains or he/she may be considered an expert only in
a particular domain of knowledge, as would be the case with a biology teacher.
In schools, teachers are expected to function as epistemic authorities, that is,
be perceived by their students as reliable sources of information, at least in the
discipline they teach. The present study investigates the perception of teachers as
epistemic authorities. It examines students’ perceptions of their teachers as epi-
stemic authorities, teachers’ self-perception of themselves as epistemic authorities,
teachers’ perceptions of to what extent their students perceive them as epistemic
authorities and, finally, comparisons will be made among these three perceptions.
In addition, the present study attempts to shed light on the factors that influence
these perceptions among students and teachers.
Although it is generally agreed that teachers transmit knowledge to their stu-
dents, there is disagreement about the scope of this transmission, based on the
different approaches as to what a teacher’s role entails. One approach empha-
sizes the task-oriented mission of teaching disciplinary knowledge (Berliner, 1983;
Weinstein, 1991), while another expands the teachers’ mission to include a wide
range of responsibilities, such as helping students to actualize themselves and to
socialize them (Gump, 1967; Fiedler, 1975; Weinstein, 1991; Blumenfield, Puro,
& Mergendoller, 1992; Goodenow, 1992; Levine, Resnick, & Higgins, 1993). Re-
cently, Gardner (1999) proposed that the different approaches are reflected in the
pedagogical perspectives provided by the different disciplines. According to
Gardner (1999), teachers piece facts together in a certain way and place them in the
service of a particular theory, framework or sequence, according to the discipline
they teach. Thus, teachers in some disciplines put an emphasis on the importance
of narrative, connecting the knowledge of their discipline to pupils’ everyday life;
others merely focus on the transmission of dry facts. However, both of these role
definitions entail the transmission of knowledge as part of the realization of teach-
ers’ functions and, in both cases, the perception of teachers as epistemic authorities
is of importance to perform satisfactorily.
Developmental studies comparing attribution of epistemic authority to various
agents of socialization in different knowledge areas have found that for young
children teachers serve as generalized epistemic authorities in several areas. In
comparison to parents and friends, children rely on teachers mostly in the area
of science, but also in the emotional domain, social relations and rules/laws (Raviv,
TEACHERS’ EPISTEMIC AUTHORITY 19

Bar-Tal, Raviv, & Houminer, 1990). As children grow older, entering pre-
adolescence and adolescence, the perception of teachers as generalized epistemic
authorities decreases. While teachers continue to be regarded as epistemic authori-
ties in specific knowledge areas related to school, such as science, their influence
is considerably reduced in other knowledge areas (Kutnick, 1980; Raviv, Bar-Tal,
Raviv, & Peleg, 1990; Bar-Tal, Raviv, Raviv, & Brosh, 1991).
The first objective of the present study was to examine students’ perception of
their teachers as epistemic authorities and elucidate those variables that influence
that perception. One of the variables studied was the subject matter (i.e., discipline)
taught by the teachers. It has been well established that subject matters belonging to
the humanities and social sciences differ considerably from subject matters belong-
ing to biological and exact sciences (Schulman & Quinlan, 1996). The former have
long been viewed as more subjective, inaccurate in data collection, unable to yield
definite rules, plagued by uncertainty and characterized by contradictory theories
(Kuhn, 1970; Zuckerman & Merton, 1971; Yoels, 1974). These views correspond
to teachers’ understanding of the nature of knowledge in the subject matter they
teach. Yaakobi and Sharan (1985) found that while science teachers believe that the
knowledge in their discipline exists ‘out there,’ and is factual and valid, humanities
teachers believe that the knowledge in their discipline is based on subjective, per-
sonal invention, reflecting individual creativity. When interviewing teachers in both
types of disciplines, Donnelly (1999) found that science teachers express common
goals, an emphasis on factual contents, and hesitancy in handling intellectual skills.
They also exhibit a tendency to ground relevance in instrumentality and to perceive
uncertainty and lack of factual knowledge as threatening. In contrast, teachers of
humanities (historians in this case) emphasize personal judgment, case-making,
and interpretation as well as transmitting inherently uncertain evidence. Following
the present line of reasoning proposed here, it can therefore be assumed that the
differential nature of the subject matter and of its object of knowledge, influences
students’ perception of their teachers as epistemic authorities. Because of the well-
defined, unequivocal answers and solutions, as well as the unambiguous rules that
students typically encounter in the exact and biological sciences, students will tend
to perceive teachers of these subjects as epistemic authorities in their disciplines
more than they perceive teachers of social sciences and humanities as such. How-
ever, the opposite is predicted with regard to students’ perception of their teachers
as generalized epistemic authorities. This prediction is based on the fact that teach-
ers of the social sciences and humanities discuss a wide range of issues and topics
due to the nature of their subject matter. Their lectures may include psychological,
sociological, cultural or political themes, which are, moreover, often relevant to
real-life issues (e.g., Husbands, 1996). Such teachers may project an understanding
of a wide range of issues, supporting students’ perception of them as generalized
epistemic authorities. Bar-Tal, Darom and Sorek (1978) indeed found that teachers
of the social sciences and humanities who emphasize the application of learned
material to everyday life, define their role more as ‘educators’, whereas teachers
20 AMIRAM RAVIV ET AL.

of the exact and biological sciences tend to define their role as ‘experts’ rather
than ‘educators.’ These role definitions probably affect the way teachers present
lectures and, in turn, influence students’ perception of them. This assumption is
confirmed by a study by Raviv, Bar-Tal, Raviv and Abin (1993), who found that
university students of statistics perceive their professors as epistemic authorities in
their disciplinary knowledge more than do students of psychology. However, the
latter, more than the former, perceive their professors as epistemic authorities in
general domains of knowledge.
In addition, students’ age is an important factor that influences students’ per-
ception of teachers as epistemic authorities. As they grow older, children develop
independent and cognitive and social skills and, consequently, tend to rely less on
adults, become more differentiated in their reliance on sources of information, are
more skeptical and critical in their selection of sources of information and depend
increasingly on their own knowledge (Inhelder & Piaget, 1958; Kassin, 1981;
Damon, 1983). The tendency to rely more on ones own knowledge, judgment, and
decisions is a result of the increased self-perception as an epistemic authority with
age.
A study by Bar-Tal, Raviv, Raviv and Brosh (1991) showed that the perception
of external information sources as epistemic authorities (e.g., parents, teachers,
siblings) depends on the development of self-perception and the consequent view
of oneself as an epistemic authority. As adolescents develop self-consciousness
and a sense of identity, they tend to formulate their own opinions about reality
and begin to perceive themselves as authoritative sources of knowledge (Offer,
Ostrov, Howard, & Atkinson, 1988). This development leads to a decreased reli-
ance on other sources of knowledge, including teachers. As a result, the perception
of teachers as epistemic authorities can be assumed to decrease with age, while
students’ perception of themselves as an epistemic authority increases with age.
Gender is another factor that may affect students’ perceptions of teachers as epi-
stemic authorities. This originates from the differential gender roles in society, with
males being expected to be more autonomous, rebellious, achievement oriented,
critical, and challenging of authority than females (Ruble & Martin, 1998). Due to
various political, cultural, and religious reasons, gender differentiation in Israel is
still very widespread and salient (Izraeli, Friedman, & Shift, 1982; Izraeli et al.,
1999). Moreover, it has been well established that female and male students main-
tain differential interactions with their teachers (Irvine, 1986; Darom & Rich, 1988;
Jules & Kutnick, 1997). Also, male students perceive their teachers differently than
do female students. For example, Good, Biddle and Brophy (1975) found that
female high school students evaluate their teachers more favorably than do male
high school students. Similarly Raviv, Bar-Tal, Raviv and Peleg (1990) found that
female pre-adolescents and adolescents overall attributed more epistemic authority
to various sources than did male pre-adolescent and adolescents. In this study,
analysis showed that in the 12th grade girls attributed more epistemic authority
to teachers in the domain of social knowledge than did boys. Thus we hypothesize
TEACHERS’ EPISTEMIC AUTHORITY 21

that female students, more than male students, perceive their teachers as epistemic
authorities.
In addition, we hypothesize that the perception of teachers as epistemic au-
thorities is dependent on students’ interest in the subject matter as well as on
their evaluation of their own knowledge and academic performance in that sub-
ject matter. This assumption is based on well established findings indicating that
interest and academic success in a subject matter affect students’ perception of
teachers. That is, students who find a subject matter interesting and who succeed
academically in it evaluate the teacher of that particular subject matter positively
and likewise respect him/her (Brophy & Good, 1986; Goodenow, 1992).
The second part of the study focuses on teachers’ perception of themselves as
epistemic authorities. Two influencing variables were investigated: subject matter
taught and teachers’ self-efficacy. The first variable has already been discussed
and we assumed that teachers know the nature of their subject matter (Yaakobi
& Sharan, 1985). Thus, it was predicted that teachers of the exact and biological
sciences would more readily perceive themselves as epistemic authorities in dis-
ciplinary knowledge than would teachers of the humanities and social sciences.
Regarding the general knowledge domain, we offer a polar hypothesis, such that
teachers of the humanities and social sciences do more readily perceive themselves
as epistemic authorities in generalized knowledge than do teachers of exact and
biological sciences.
Self-efficacy has been defined as ‘the extent to which the teacher believes he
or she has the capacity to affect student performance’ (Berman et al., 1977, p.
137). It reflects how teachers perceive their own capacities in their role enactment
vis-à-vis their students. Therefore, the concept is related to the specific perception
of oneself as an epistemic authority and the assessment of one’s own role per-
formance (Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998). The scale developed by Gibson
and Dembo (1984) demonstrates that self-efficacy consists of two factors: personal
efficacy, which refers to one’s own skill or capacity to bring about student learning,
and teaching efficacy, which refers to one’s beliefs about the ability of teaching,
as a profession, to make a change. According to this conception, self-efficacy, in
general, concerns teachers’ evaluation of their abilities, both as individuals and
as professional teachers, to bring about positive change in their students. Self-
perception as an epistemic authority, on the other hand, refers to teachers’ eval-
uation of themselves as being able to serve as reliable sources of knowledge,
knowledge that students trust and accept as valid. Furthermore, teachers’ self-
efficacy was found to be related to enthusiasm and commitment to teaching (e.g.,
Guskey, 1984; Coladarci, 1992; Allinder, 1994), willingness to invest more effort
in teaching (e.g., Ashton & Webb, 1986), and to achieve better outcomes (e.g.,
Ross, 1992). It can be assumed that these variables likewise influence teachers’
perceptions of themselves as epistemic authorities to their students.
Finally, the present study compares three perspectives on epistemic author-
ity: students’ perceptions of teachers, teachers’ perceptions of themselves, and
22 AMIRAM RAVIV ET AL.

teachers’ perceptions of how their students perceive them. Past research has found
that teachers tend to see themselves in a more positive light than students view
them (Abraham, 1974). They also tend to think that students perceive them in
a more positive light than students actually do (Abraham, 1974). For example,
Raviv, Raviv and Reisel (1990) found that teachers tend to perceive the classroom
environment in which they teach, especially their own involvement and support,
more favorably than their students do. These findings are related to another line
of research about positive self-bias, which shows that people in general and teach-
ers in particular tend to take personal responsibility only for positive outcomes
(i.e., their students’ successes) and not for negative ones (Johnson, Feigenbaum, &
Wiley, 1964; Abraham, 1974; Bar-Tal & Guttmann, 1981). This ego-enhancement
tendency is also expected to play a role in the present comparisons. Hence, we
expect teachers to perceive themselves more as epistemic authorities than students
perceive them to be, and that teachers believe their students perceive them as being
more of an epistemic authority than students actually do.

2. Method

2.1. PARTICIPANTS

Two groups of participants took part in the study: students and teachers.
Students were 1465 junior high and high school students from the central region
of Israel: 786 from twenty-five 7th grade classes (aged 12–13; 389 boys and 397
girls), and 679 from twenty-five 10th grade classes (aged 15–16; 315 boys and
364 girls). The two groups came from similar socio-economic backgrounds, that
is, middle class families.
Teachers were drawn from different schools than were the students. This was
done for ethical and methodological reasons. Some of the teachers of the classes
taken by the students in our sample expressed reservations about participating in
the study. Taking only those teachers who agreed to participate would have created
a problem with the study design, since only a small part of the classes were matched
with all four teachers of the examined subject areas. We made special efforts to
match the schools of participating teachers and students. The schools from which
students and teachers were drawn respectively, were the same geographical area,
all were secular public schools with the same Ministry of Education curriculum,
and similar with regard to socio-economic status of the students and teachers.
Participants were 131 female teachers (32 literature teachers, 52 mathematics
teachers, 12 biology teachers, and 35 history teachers) from 10 junior high and high
schools in the central and southern regions of Israel. The participating teachers had
a mean age of 38.5 (ranging between 24 and 60), with mean teaching experience
of 12.6 years (ranging between 1 and 37).
TEACHERS’ EPISTEMIC AUTHORITY 23

2.1.1. Students’ Instrument

The instrument used for the students contained several parts. The first measured
students’ perceptions of their teachers’ epistemic authority. The second assessed
their own self-perceived epistemic authority, and the final part measured self-
evaluation. Following is a description of each of these parts.

2.1.1.1. Epistemic authority measurement. The measurement of epistemic au-

thority was based on the Epistemic Authority Scale (EAS) an instrument developed
by Raviv, Bar-Tal, Raviv and Abin (1993). The EAS consists of 17 items referring
to different aspects of a person’s reliance on a source’s knowledge. The present
instrument contains only nine items, with responses given on a 6-point rating scale
ranging from 1 (definitely disagree) to 6 (definitely agree). The nine items of the
scale administered to students were as follows: (1) He/she has a great deal of knowl-
edge, (2) I do not trust his/her knowledge, (3) I accept what he/she says as correct,
(4) He/she is no great expert, (5) He/she is careful to give accurate facts, (6) His/her
arguments are based on verified knowledge, (7) When asked a question, he/she
knows what the right answer is, (8) His/her knowledge is not greater than that of
other teachers, and (9) It is possible to rely on his/her knowledge wholeheartedly.
The items were selected from the original EAS by five teachers, who were
instructed to select those items that would allow students to best evaluate their
teachers’ epistemic authority. The items in the original instrument that were related
to change of attitude or behavior under the influence of the authority were omitted.
We left intact the items attributing knowledge and trustworthiness to teachers. Two
items were greatly modified and, at the suggestion of high school students who
participated in a pilot study, several slight changes were made to clarify the items.
The described instrument was used to assess the students’ attribution of epistemic
authority to teachers in four subject matters: literature, mathematics, biology, and
history. Teachers were assessed in two domains: (a) as epistemic authorities in the
knowledge of their particular discipline (disciplinary domain), and (b) as nonspe-
cific epistemic authorities in various domains of knowledge (general domain). The
questions were formulated as follows: What is the extent of epistemic authority
that you attribute to your teacher (a) in the domain of the discipline she is teaching,
(b) in general, in various other domains of knowledge. Thus, each student rated
four different teachers (literature, mathematics, biology, and history), regarding
their epistemic authority in the disciplinary and general domains. The reliability of
the instrument used to measure teachers’ attributed epistemic authority in the four
subject areas and the two domains of knowledge (disciplinary and general) was
examined by means of Cronbach’s alpha. The eight alphas varied between 0.81
and 0.90.
In addition, the students were asked to assess their own epistemic authority
regarding various school subjects. The assessments were made using the same nine
items, modified to measure self-attribution (self epistemic authority = self EA).
Cronbach’s alpha of this scale was 0.77.
24 AMIRAM RAVIV ET AL.

2.1.1.2. Self-evaluation. Students were asked to evaluate their interest, knowl-

edge, and performance in each of the four subject areas (literature, mathematics,
biology, and history). They were asked: (a) “To what extent does (e.g., literature)
interest you?” with answers ranging from 1 (not interesting at all) to 6 (very in-
teresting), (b) “How well do you know (e.g., literature)?” with answers ranging
from 1 (I have no knowledge) to 6 (I have much knowledge), and (c) “My grades
in (e.g., literature) are usually . . .” with answers given on a scale ranging from 1
(fail) to 6 (very good/excellent). Computation of Cronbach’s reliabilities for the
three questions yielded 0.68, 0.79, 0.81, and 0.76 for literature, mathematics, bi-
ology, and history, respectively. The average scores for the above three questions,
calculated for each subject area constituted the self-evaluation scores for the four
subject matters.
Finally, the students were asked to note the level of education of their parents.

2.1.2. Teachers’ Instrument

The teachers’ instrument consisted of three parts: a scale for measuring teachers’
self-perceptions of their epistemic authority, a scale for measuring teachers’ per-
ceptions of how their students perceive their epistemic authority, and a scale for
measuring teachers’ self efficacy.

2.1.2.1. Teachers’ perceptions. The self-perception of teachers as epistemic au-

thorities was measured with the same scale as that used in the case of the students.
The nine items were used to assess the epistemic authority which teachers attribute
to themselves (self-attributed epistemic authority) in the two domains: disciplin-
ary and general. In addition, using the same instrument, teachers’ perception of
students’ attribution of epistemic authority to them (perceived students’ attribution
of teachers’ epistemic authority) was assessed in these two domains. Reliabilities
(Cronbach’s alpha) were α = 0.76 for self-attribution in the disciplinary domain,
α = 0.77 for self-attribution in the general domain, α = 0.81 for perception of
students’ attribution in the disciplinary domain, and α = 0.86 for perception of
students in the general domain.

2.1.2.2. Teacher self-efficacy scale. This instrument was developed by Gibson

and Dembo (1984) and translated into Hebrew by Eylon (1995), who validated it
and used it with a sample of 254 Israeli teachers. The scale included 16 items with
answers ranging from 1 (I definitely do not agree) to 6 (I definitely agree). The two
factors that emerged in those studies (Eylon, 1995; Gibson & Dembo, 1984) are
personal efficacy, including 9 items, and teaching efficacy, including 7 items. In
our study, reliabilities were α = 0.80 for personal efficacy, α = 0.65 for teaching
efficacy, and α = 0.77 for the total score of all the 16 items.
Finally, the teachers were asked for some background information: their age,
teaching experience (years), and level of education.
TEACHERS’ EPISTEMIC AUTHORITY 25

2.2. PROCEDURE
The questionnaires were administered to students in their classrooms by a female
researcher. The study was presented as research on ‘the extent of children’s and
adolescents’ reliance on things that their teachers tell them in the domain they
teach and in other domains.’ All the instructions appeared in print in the question-
naire, and they were also read aloud in class. The researcher elaborated on two
domains by providing examples of each and she asked the students whether they
had understood the instructions. Students were promised anonymity (they were not
asked to write down their names) and asked to express their sincere opinions.
Teachers were individually approached by a female researcher in the teach-
ers’ common room at their schools. They were given a stamped envelope with
the request to complete and return the questionnaire, presented as a study about
teachers’ self-perception and students’ perception of them. They, too, were assured
anonymity and requested to give their sincere response.

3. Results
The reporting of the results will be divided into three main parts. First, the results
pertaining to students’ perception of their teachers as epistemic authorities will be
reported. Next, the results concerning teachers’ self-perception as an epistemic au-
thority will be presented. Finally, comparisons of the perception of students about
their teachers and the self-perception of teachers with teachers’ perception of how
students think about them, all with regard to epistemic authority, will be reported.

3.1. STUDENTS ’ PERCEPTIONS

3.1.1. Attribution of Epistemic Authority to Teachers (Teacher EA)
The scores indicating the extent of attributed epistemic authority are the average
scores from the nine questionnaire items, to which answers were given on a 6-point
scale. Each respondent received eight scores derived from his/her evaluation of the
teachers in the four subject matters: literature, mathematics, biology, and history,
each in the two knowledge domains: disciplinary and general. Since students in
each class evaluated the epistemic authority of the same four teachers, the class was
used as a grouping factor nested in the two age groups. Thus, evaluation of teacher
EA was analyzed using a MANOVA, with gender and age as grouping factors, class
as a grouping factor nested in age, and the two knowledge domains (disciplinary
v.s. general) and four subject matters as within-subject factors.1 Table 1 presents
1 In order to take into consideration the fact that all the students in one class evaluated the same
four teachers, another analysis was conducted, using class means of boys and girls as the observations
(N = 50 classes). A MANOVA was used, with age as the grouping variable (n = 25 classes in each
age group) and gender, domain, and subject matter as within-subject variables. Results yielded the
same conclusions as those reported here, although F -values were not the same, of course.
26 AMIRAM RAVIV ET AL.

Table I. Means and standard deviations of teacher EA in the disciplinary and the general domain,
reported by students, by subject matter and age (class scores, N = 50 classes)

Disciplinary knowledge General knowledge

7th grade 10th grade 7th grade 10th grade

History
Mean 4.79c 4.71b 4.36c 4.17b
SD 0.40 0.31 0.41 0.39

Literature
Mean 4.57a 4.40a 4.09b 3.78a
SD 0.32 0.26 0.39 0.27

Mathematics
Mean 4.70bc 4.66b 3.89a 3.72a
SD 0.43 0.52 0.41 0.54

Biology
Mean 4.60ab 4.36a 3.97a 3.83a
SD 0.55 0.79 0.46 0.69

Note. Means of subject matters within a column having the same subscript letter are not significantly
different at p < 0.05 by the Bonferroni correction.

the classes’ means and standard deviations of teacher EA scores, where each class
score is an average of the scores given by the students in the same class. It should
be noted that means based on the students’ scores are merely the weighted av-
erage of the classes’ means, depending on class size. Class within age group was
found significant as a main effect and also when interacting with the within-subject
factors. For example, the class (within age) × domain × subject matter interaction
resulted in F (144, 4239) = 2.66, p < 0.01 (with error mean square of 0.17). This
indicates that students in different classes differed in their evaluation of teachers’
epistemic authority (even when evaluating teachers of the same subject matter in
the same domain). Results show a main effect of gender, F (1, 1413) = 16.12,
p < 0.01, with no interaction of gender with any of the other variables. This
suggests that girls attribute more epistemic authority to teachers than do boys
(overall means are 4.55 and 4.63 for boys and girls, respectively, regarding dis-
ciplinary knowledge, and 3.92 and 4.04 regarding general knowledge). The main
effect for age, F (1, 1413) = 39.44, p < 0.01, suggests that, overall, the younger
students (7th grade) tended to attribute more epistemic authority to their teachers
than did the older students (10th grade). However, the age by subject matter by
domain interaction, F (3, 1411) = 12.56, p < 0.01, suggests that age differences
are not the same for each subject matter or domain. The appropriate means are
presented in Table 1, and the interaction is illustrated in Figure 1. Significant
TEACHERS’ EPISTEMIC AUTHORITY 27

Figure 1. Teachers EA means by age group, domain (disciplinary v.s. general), and subject
matter, as reported by students.

main effects of domain, F (1, 1413) = 1964.00, p < 0.01, and subject matter,
F (3, 1411) = 76.21, p < 0.01, were also found, as well as a domain × subject
matter interaction, F (3, 1411) = 98.04, p < 0.01.
In view of the three-way interaction of age by domain by subject matter, we
examined subject matter differences for each domain within each age group sepa-
rately. In addition, both age and domain differences were tested for each of the four
subject matters. All the tests were done accounting for class within age group, and
significance was decided by using the Bonferroni method correction for multiple
comparisons, with α = 0.05.

3.1.1.1. Age difference. For disciplinary knowledge, literature and biology teach-
ers were attributed with a significantly higher level of epistemic authority by 7th
graders compared to 10th graders (see Table 1). Regarding general knowledge,
teachers in all the four subject matters were attributed a higher level of epistemic
authority by 7th graders students than by 10th graders (see Table 1).

3.1.1.2. Domain difference. The evaluation of teachers’ epistemic authority in

disciplinary knowledge was higher than in general knowledge for all four subject
matters in the two age groups. The three-way interaction of domain by subject
matter by age suggests that these domain differences are not the same for all subject
matters in the two age groups (see Figure 1).

3.1.1.3. Subject matter differences. Regarding disciplinary knowledge, older stu-

dents (10th grade) attributed more epistemic authority to their history and math-
ematics teachers than to their literature and biology teachers (see Table 1). The
younger students (7th grade) also rated the epistemic authority of their history
teachers as higher than that of their biology and literature teachers, while
28 AMIRAM RAVIV ET AL.

mathematics teachers were rated higher than literature teachers, but no different
than biology teachers. Regarding general knowledge, the older students rated their
history teachers higher as epistemic authorities than they did their mathematics,
literature, and biology teachers, while the younger students rated their history
teachers the highest, literature teachers second, and biology and mathematics
teachers last.

3.1.2. Self-attribution of Epistemic Authority (Self EA)

Because of the positive correlations between students’ self EA and their parents’
level of education, an ANCOVA was conducted on self EA with gender and age as
grouping variables and parents’ education (combined mean of father’s and mother’s
education) as a covariate. The results showed a significant effect of the covariate,
F (1, 1460) = 30.95, p < 0.01, with a positive relationship between parents’
education and self EA. They also showed a main effect of gender, F (1, 1460) =
15.59, p < 0.01, suggesting that boys have higher self EA scores than do girls
(M = 4.36, SD = 0.70 for boys, and M = 4.22, SD = 0.70 for girls); and a
main effect of age group, F (1, 1460) = 14.41, p < 0.01, suggesting that younger
students have higher self EA scores than do the older ones (M = 4.35, SD = 0.73
for 7th grade, and M = 4.21, SD = 0.66 for 10th grade). The means adjusted for
the covariate are very similar to those mentioned above because parents’ education
does not vary as a function of gender or children’s age group.

3.1.3. Relationships Between the Variables

Although we found that teacher EA was evaluated as higher in the disciplinary
domain than in the general domain, high positive correlations were found between
teacher EA in the two domains for all four subject matters (r = 0.66, 0.61, 0.75,
and 0.72 for literature, mathematics, biology, history, respectively, all significant
at the 0.01 level). Correlations between evaluations of teacher EA in the different
subject matters were much lower, though significant, due to the large sample.
In Table II we see that the correlations between teacher EA and self EA are
relatively low. In addition, Table II presents correlations between teacher EA in
the disciplinary domain and students’ self-evaluation in the same subject matters.
All correlations presented are positive, but it seems that the variable most strongly
correlated with teacher’s attributed epistemic authority is the respondent’s reported
interest in the subject matter, followed by the respondent’s self-evaluated knowl-
edge, with performance in the subject matter reported as last. In addition, the
epistemic authority attributed to mathematics teachers is not as strongly related
to student’s self-evaluation as the epistemic authority attributed to teachers of the
other subject matters.
The background variables of the students were found to affect their perception
of teachers’ epistemic authority. The three self-evaluation scores are correlated
TEACHERS’ EPISTEMIC AUTHORITY 29
Table II. Pearson correlations between teacher disciplinary EA and self-evaluation items in the
teacher’s subject matter, and correlations between teacher disciplinary EA and self EA (N = 1465
students)

Teacher’s disciplinary EA

History Literature Mathematics Biology

Self EA 0.147 0.095 0.160 0.078

Self-evaluation
Interest 0.315 0.313 0.251 0.354
Knowledge 0.251 0.215 0.136 0.249
Performance 0.200 0.113 0.137 0.201

Note. All correlations are significant at the 0.01 level.

with the background variables and among themselves. Thus, in order to control
for background variables and isolate the specific contribution of each of the self-
evaluation items to the prediction of the perceived teacher EA, we conducted
regressions of teacher’s disciplinary EA (for each of the four subject matters sep-
arately) on the variables: gender, age group, parents’ education, self EA, and the
three self-evaluation items (interest, knowledge, and performance) in that same
subject matter. The regression analyses were carried out hierarchically, in a step-
wise manner. The results are presented in Table III. In addition to this analysis,
we conducted an analysis taking into account the classes to which the students
are affiliated. This was done using MANOVAs with gender and class (nested in
the two age groups) as grouping factors and parents’ education, self EA, and the
three self-evaluation as covariates. The results were almost identical to the mul-
tiple regression above, thus we decided on reporting the stepwise regression. It
seems that the relations between EA and the explanatory variables here did not
depend on the students’ class affiliation. In all four subject matters, the first self-
evaluation variable to enter into the regression was the degree of interest in the
subject matter. For literature and biology, this was the only self-evaluation vari-
able that was entered into the regression. For history teachers, self-evaluation of
school performance in history entered into the regression of the disciplinary do-
main as well. For mathematics teachers, self-evaluation of knowledge in math-
ematics entered the regression of the general domain. Table III also shows that
student’s self EA is an important variable explaining teacher’s epistemic authority.
Thus, the results of the above analyses suggest that in all four subject matters, the
respondent’s degree of interest contributes most to the prediction of a teacher’s
attributed epistemic authority, which means that the more a student is interested in
the subject matter, the more he/she attributes epistemic authority in that discipline
to the teacher.
30 AMIRAM RAVIV ET AL.

Table III. Summary of stepwise regressions predicting students’ perceptions of teachers EA

(N = 1465 students)

Disciplinary knowledge General knowledge

Step Variable β t Step Variable β t

History (R 2 = 0.113, p < 0.01) History (R 2 = 0.109, p < 0.01)

1 Interest 0.28 10.35∗∗ 1 Interest 0.28 10.22∗∗
2 Self EA 0.07 2.72∗∗ 2 Self EA 0.10 3.91∗∗
3 Gender 0.06 2.26∗ 3 Gender 0.08 3.18∗∗
4 School performance 0.06 2.14∗

Literature (R 2 = 0.109, p < 0.01) Literature (R 2 = 0.126, p < 0.01)

1 Interest 0.30 12.04∗∗ 1 Interest 0.30 12.08∗∗
2 Age group −0.07 −2.96∗∗ 2 Age group −0.13 −5.34∗∗
3 Self EA 0.07 2.69∗∗ 3 Self EA 0.07 2.98∗∗

Math (R 2 = 0.078, p < 0.01) Math (R 2 = 0.093, p < 0.01)

1 Interest 0.23 8.85∗∗ 1 Interest 0.29 9.47∗∗
2 Self EA 0.11 4.33∗∗ 2 Self EA 0.14 5.27∗∗
3 Gender 0.06 2.49∗ 3 Gender 0.08 3.19∗∗
4 Knowledge −0.10 −3.02∗∗

Biology (R 2 = 0.129, p < 0.01) Biology (R 2 = 0.117, p < 0.01)

1 Interest 0.34 13.82∗∗ 1 Interest 0.35 13.92∗∗
2 Age group −0.06 −2.45∗ 2 Parents’ −0.05 −2.13∗
education

Note. Only the significant variables are presented in the table.

Age group is coded as: 1 = 7th grade, 2 = 10th grade; Gender is coded as: 1 = Boys, 2 = Girls.
∗ p < 0.05. ∗∗ p < 0.01.

3.2. TEACHERS ’ PERCEPTIONS

Analysis of teachers’ self-attributed EA scores was conducted by a 2 × 4 × (2)
MANOVA, with school (junior high school, high school) and subject matter
(literature, math, biology, and history) as grouping factors, and domain (disci-
plinary, general) as a within-subject factor. The results showed that the school factor
did not yield any effect. The means of EA scores by subject matter are presen-
ted in Table V, column 2 (the two school levels together). The obtained domain
effect indicates that teachers gave higher self EA scores for the disciplinary than
for the general domain, F (1, 123) = 73.69, p < 0.01. In addition, domain by
subject matter interaction was found, F (1, 123) = 4.87, p < 0.01. The various
comparisons conducted showed that teachers of all the subject matters attributed
more self EA to the disciplinary knowledge domain than to the general knowledge
domain. Also, mathematics teachers had higher disciplinary self-EA scores than
did history teachers. Teachers of different subject matters did not differ in their
TEACHERS’ EPISTEMIC AUTHORITY 31
Table IV. Summary of stepwise regressions predicting self EA scores
reported by teachers (N = 131 teachers)

Step Variable β t

Disciplinary domain
1 Personal efficacy 0.29 3.63∗∗
2 School 0.26 3.26∗∗
3 Mathematics 0.22 2.79∗∗ R 2 = 0.195, p < 0.01

General domain
1 Personal efficacy 0.21 2.46∗ R 2 = 0.045, p < 0.01
Note. Only the significant variables are presented in the table.
School is coded as: 1 = Junior-high, 2 = High; Subject matter dummy
variables in the regression were indicators of literature, mathematics, and
history.
∗ p < 0.05. ∗∗ p < 0.01.

general self EA. Thus, the obtained interaction is a result of the greater difference
between disciplinary self EA and general self EA for mathematics teachers than
for teachers of the other subject matters (see Table V, column 2). A correlation
calculated between self-perception of disciplinary EA and general EA shows that
the two scales strongly correlate, r(131) = 0.52, p < 0.01.
In addition, scores of teacher efficacy were analyzed with 2 × 4 × (2) MAN-
OVA, where the two factors of the scale, personal efficacy and teaching efficacy,
are the within-subject factors, and school (junior high school, high school) and the
four subject matters are the grouping factors. The results did not yield any grouping
differences. However, the factor personal efficacy was rated higher than the factor
teaching efficacy, F (1, 123) = 74.12, p < 0.01. The means are M = 4.52,
SD = 0.66 for personal efficacy and M = 3.72, SD = 0.79 for teaching efficacy.
To examine the relations between teachers’ self EA scores and teaching efficacy,
controlling for background variables, regressions were conducted on the self EA
scores. Results show that personal efficacy, school, and subject matter were the
only variables explaining the variability of teachers’ self EA scores (see Table IV).
They indicate the following: (a) higher self-perception of EA in the disciplinary
domain relates to higher personal efficacy, to high school teachers as compared to
junior high school teachers, and to mathematics teachers as compared to the other
teachers; (b) higher self-perception of EA in the general domain relates to higher
personal efficacy only.

3.2.1. Comparison Between Perceptions of Students and of Teachers

The collected data allowed comparisons to be made among the three following
perspectives related to perceptions of teachers’ epistemic authority: (a) students’
 32
Table V. Means and standard deviations of teachers’ epistemic authority: (1) Students’ perception of teachers,
(2) Teachers’ self perceptions, and (3) Teachers’ perceptions of students

(1) (2) (3) (1) versus (2) (1) versus (3) (2) versus (3)

Students Teachers’ self- Teachers’

perception perception perception df t df t df t
of teachers of students (two-sample) (two-sample) (paired)

Disciplinary EA
History 4.75 (0.35) 5.06 (0.59) 5.37 (0.41) 51.0 2.77 65.8 7.13∗ 34 3.73∗
Literature 4.49 (0.30) 5.15 (0.46) 5.48 (0.56) 47.9 7.24∗ 42.4 9.17∗ 31 4.17∗
Math 4.68 (0.47) 5.35 (0.42) 5.53 (0.45) 97.4 7.58∗ 99.3 9.31∗ 51 3.84∗
Biology 4.48 (0.68) 5.22 (0.38) 5.33 (0.37) 31.1 5.10∗ 32.0 5.94∗ 11 0.96

General EA
History 4.27 (0.41) 4.74 (0.61) 5.04 (0.57) 55.0 4.03∗ 57.5 6.88∗ 34 3.88∗
Literature 3.93 (0.36) 4.72 (0.56) 5.26 (0.63) 47.8 6.97∗ 44.4 10.76∗ 31 6.06∗
Math 3.80 (0.48) 4.64 (0.56) 5.09 (0.66) 99.0 8.15∗ 93.1 11.21∗ 51 4.81∗

AMIRAM RAVIV ET AL.

Biology 3.90 (0.58) 4.70 (0.57) 5.05 (0.55) 17.0 4.40∗ 17.3 6.46∗ 11 3.12
∗ p < 0.05 (corrected for 24 comparisons by Bonferroni).
TEACHERS’ EPISTEMIC AUTHORITY 33

perception of their teachers as epistemic authorities in disciplinary and general

knowledge domains, (b) teachers’ self-perception as epistemic authorities in the
two domains of knowledge, and (c) teachers’ perception of how students perceive
their epistemic authorities in the two domains of knowledge.
The first comparison was conducted between the two latter perceptions: teach-
ers’ self-perception and teachers’ perception of how students perceive them. This
comparison was conducted by a 2 × 4 × (2 × 2) MANOVA, analyzing these two
perceptions as a within-subject factor (perception object), in addition to the former
school by subject matter by domain factors used previously in the MANOVA
design analyzing the teachers’ data. The results showed that teachers’ perceptions
of how students perceive their epistemic authority are higher than teachers’ self EA
perceptions, F (1, 123) = 50.26, p < 0.01. An interaction of perception object by
domain was also found, F (1, 123) = 9.57, p < 0.01, due to a greater difference
between the two domains in self-perception than in attribution to students. The
means of attribution to students are presented in Table V, column 3. Comparisons
between teachers’ self-perception and teachers’ attribution to students (columns 2
and 3 of Table V) were also conducted for the disciplinary and the general domain
of knowledge in all the four subject matters. The analyses were conducted by
paired t-tests, with the Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. The results,
shown in Table V, show that teachers’ perception of self EA is indeed significantly
lower than their attribution to students in all the subject matters, except biology
(see Table V).
The comparisons of the data collected from students and from teachers could
not be performed by MANOVA because students evaluated each of their four
teachers (in the four subject matters) while the reports of the teachers of different
subject matters are all independent. Thus, subject matter is a within-subject factor
in the students’ data, while it is a grouping factor in the teachers’ data. There-
fore, two sets of comparisons between students’ perceptions of teachers’ epistemic
authorities and teachers’ self-perception of their own epistemic authority, as well
as between students’ perceptions of teachers’ epistemic authorities and teachers’
of how students perceive them as epistemic authority, were calculated separately
for each subject matter and for each knowledge domain. For these comparisons,
the scores of students’ perceptions of teachers’ epistemic authority used were the
means of the scores given to the teachers by the students in their classes. Thus, the
means in column 1 of Table V are means of N = 50 class scores, and columns 2
and 3 are the means of the teachers’ sample grouped by subject matter.
Comparisons between students and teachers were done by two-sample t-tests,
separately for each subject matter, using unequal variances. In order to control
for the error rate, significance was decided by using the Bonferroni correction for
multiple comparisons (see Table V).
The comparisons show that for all the four subject matters and the two knowl-
edge domains, students’ perceptions of their teachers’ epistemic authority are
lower than the self-perceptions of the teachers themselves (column 1 vs. column 2),
34 AMIRAM RAVIV ET AL.

which are, in turn, lower than teachers’ perceptions of how students perceive them
(column 2 vs. column 3). Similarly, students’ perceptions of their teachers’ epi-
stemic authority are lower than the teachers’ perceptions of how students perceive
them (column 1 vs. column 3). There are three exceptions to these results: for his-
tory teachers, the comparison of students’ perception of teachers to teachers’ self-
perception (column 1 vs. column 2) was non-significant in the disciplinary domain,
and for biology teachers, the comparison of teachers’ self-perception to their per-
ception of how students perceive them (column 2 vs. column 3) was non-significant
in the disciplinary as well as in the general domains.

4. Discussion
The present study was designed to illuminate the perceived role performance of
teachers as transmitters of knowledge from the perspective of lay-epistemic theory.
This theory, proposed by Kruglanski (1989), introduced the concept of epistemic
authority, which allows the present examination of the perception of teachers as
valid sources of information in the discipline they teach and in general knowl-
edge domains. This examination was performed in three parts. First, students’
perceptions of their teachers as epistemic authorities were assessed. The study in-
vestigated the influence of several important variables on these perceptions: teach-
ers’ subject matter and students’ age, gender, self-evaluation and perception of
themselves as epistemic authorities. Second, teachers’ perceptions of themselves
as epistemic authorities were measured and the effects of self-efficacy, teaching
experience, and subject matter taught on this perception were investigated. Finally,
the study compared three perspectives on teachers’ perceptions as epistemic au-
thorities: students’ perceptions, teachers’ self-perception and teachers’ perception
of how students perceive them. Following is a discussion of the three parts of the
study.

4.1. STUDENTS ’ PERCEPTION OF THEIR TEACHERS AS EPISTEMIC

AUTHORITIES

The study showed that, when we use absolute measures, students perceive their
teachers as moderate epistemic authorities. The mean scores of teachers’ percep-
tions as epistemic authorities on a 7-point scale ranged between 4.36 and 4.79 in the
disciplinary knowledge and between 3.72 and 4.36 in the general knowledge do-
main. These results are in line with the findings by Raviv, Bar-Tal, Raviv and Peleg
(1990) and Bar-Tal, Raviv, Raviv and Brosh (1991) which showed that adolescents
rely moderately on teachers’ knowledge of science, somewhat less than they rely
on their father for the same information. These studies also showed that during
adolescence, the perception of teachers as epistemic authorities in other areas of
knowledge (e.g., values, social relations, future, planning, past-time) is low. That
is, although teachers, in comparison to other sources of knowledge, function as
TEACHERS’ EPISTEMIC AUTHORITY 35

generalized epistemic authorities of importance during childhood (Raviv, Bar-Tal,

Raviv, & Houminer, 1990), with age and prolonged experience in school, children
learn about their teachers’ limitations. And although they still view teachers as
reliable sources of disciplinary knowledge, they realize that other sources may be
more reliable, that teachers are not always good transmitters of knowledge and that
they do not always have sufficient knowledge in their discipline (Emler, Ohana, &
Moscovici, 1987; Bar-Tal, Raviv, Raviv, & Brosh, 1991). Thus, children greatly re-
duce their reliance on teachers, particularly in various general knowledge domains
(but also somewhat in disciplinary knowledge), and they come to view teachers and
other sources (e.g., peers, the media) as alternative epistemic authorities (Raviv,
Bar-Tal, Raviv, & Peleg, 1990; Smetana & Bitz, 1996).
A more focused look at the results shows that a number of variables influence
students’ perception of teachers as epistemic authorities. Regarding gender, as pre-
dicted, female students perceive their teachers as epistemic authorities more than
do male students; at the same time, they perceive themselves as less of an epistemic
authority than do male students. This finding is not surprising in view of the gender
expectations and sex roles prevalent in school and in society. In general, females are
expected to be more passive, obedient and dependent, while males expected to be
more autonomous, original and active (Ruble & Martin, 1998). These expectations
also exist in the school setting. Various studies show that female students are more
obedient to school rules and more accepting of teachers’ authority (Smetana &
Bitz, 1996).
With regard to age, the main effect shows that, in general, younger students
have a greater tendency to perceive their teachers as epistemic authorities than
do older students. This finding is in line with the cognitive and social develop-
ments we know to take place during adolescence. Between the ages of 12–13 and
15–16, adolescents change their frame of reference towards knowledge, sources
of information, and reliance on authorities. They develop criteria for evaluating
knowledge, grow confident of their own knowledge, become more critical and
skeptical, and decrease their reliance on external authorities, as well as on external
sources of information (Piaget, 1970; Turiel, 1983; Damon & Hart, 1988; Smetana,
1995). Developmental studies of epistemic authority show that with age, on the one
hand, adolescents increase their perception of themselves as epistemic authorities,
and, on the other hand, they decrease their epistemic reliance on their parents and
teachers (Raviv, Bar-Tal, Raviv, & Peleg, 1990; Bar-Tal, Raviv, Raviv, & Brosch,
1991). They also become more differentiated in their reliance on external sources of
information, as they become able to differentiate among domains of knowledge and
identify sources of information which correspond to those domains. The finding
of the present study to the effect that adolescents perceive their teachers as greater
epistemic authorities in their own discipline than in the general knowledge domain,
supports this observation.
Analysis of the influence of teachers’ subject matter on their being perceived as
epistemic authorities presents a somewhat complex picture. Regarding disciplinary
36 AMIRAM RAVIV ET AL.

knowledge, contrary to our expectations, history teachers of 7th and 10th graders
were evaluated as highly as were mathematics teachers. Within the realm of general
knowledge, the results were less surprising. History teachers of both age groups
were perceived to have the highest level of epistemic authority. In the younger age
group, teachers of literature were perceived more as epistemic authorities than were
teachers of mathematics and biology.
The surprising findings regarding the perception of history and biology teachers
suggest that the teaching of these two subject matters has a rather different char-
acter than we originally assumed. There are clear indications that although history
teachers recognize uncertainty and subjectivity as being inherent to their discipline,
they also construct their teaching with a reliance on factual knowledge (Donnelly,
1999). This reliance on facts provides solid grounds for presenting history as an
objective and accurate discipline. This approach probably raises the disciplinary
status of history teachers, who are perceived as transmitting valid historic knowl-
edge in their classes. Another possible cause for the perception of history teachers
as epistemic authorities in their discipline derives from the fact that they are seen as
having a wide range of knowledge in different domains, which they use in history
lessons. That is, in order to explain various events and processes, they use political,
economic, social, and even psychological knowledge. This does not only greatly
influence the perception of history teachers as epistemic authorities in general
domains of knowledge, but also increases students’ reliance on these teachers as
epistemic authorities in their own discipline.
The relatively low perception of biology teachers as epistemic authorities can
be explained by the recently defined objectives of this curriculum in Israel. The
new biology curriculum attempts to encourage students’ open-mindedness, critical
thinking, the ability to differentiate between data and inferences, and the ability to
form autonomous opinions in view of data, without compliance to teachers’ author-
ity (Ministry of Education and Culture, 1990). These objectives reduce teachers’
epistemic authority and transfer the knowledge basis directly to empirical obser-
vations. Indeed, Israeli biology teachers who attempt to realize these objectives
were found to include much data collection in their lessons, serving as a basis
for the formation of disciplinary knowledge, while they themselves taking a less
important role in knowledge transmission (Ratner, 1995). As a result of this prac-
tice, students rely less on teachers’ knowledge and, therefore, perceive them as
epistemic authorities to a lesser degree.
Teachers of mathematics and literature were perceived as we hypothesized. The
former were attributed a high level of epistemic authority in their disciplinary
knowledge, while the latter were attributed a low level of epistemic authority in
their disciplinary knowledge. This situation was reversed with regard to general
knowledge domains, especially among the younger age group: mathematics teach-
ers were attributed less epistemic authority than literature teachers. As a discipline,
mathematics, in contrast to literature, is viewed as well-defined, unequivocal, sci-
entific, and objective. Hence, its teachers are perceived as experts in their discipline
TEACHERS’ EPISTEMIC AUTHORITY 37

but as limited sources of information in general knowledge (Kuhn, 1970; Lodahl

& Gordon, 1972; Yoels, 1974; Peirce, 1976). In contrast, literature is viewed as a
subjective, undefined, equivocal, ‘artistic’ discipline and, therefore, its teachers are
perceived less as disciplinary epistemic authorities and more as epistemic author-
ities in general knowledge areas. The latter perception probably derives from the
use in literary analysis of interpretations based on general knowledge.
Of special interest in the present study is the finding indicating students’ in-
terest in the subject matter is the best predictor of the perception of teachers as
epistemic authorities: The higher the interest in the subject matter, the higher the
perception of the teacher as an epistemic authority. This finding can be explained
by the observation that teachers’ instruction and management practices are cru-
cial determinants of students’ interest in the subject matter (Emmer, Evertson,
& Brophy, 1979; Brophy & Good, 1986; Doyle, 1986; Goodenow, 1992). When
teachers present the subject matter interestingly, with enthusiasm, and relate well to
students, they succeed in stimulating the interest of students in the subject matter.
The students, in turn, perceive them as epistemic authorities. It is however also
possible that mere interest in a subject matter already tunes and focuses students to
the contents conveyed by their teachers, thus increasing the latter’s perception as
epistemic authority (Askell-Williams & Lawson, 2002).

4.2. TEACHERS ’ PERCEPTIONS

The results of teachers’ self-perception measures on epistemic authority are as
predicted. In general, teachers perceived themselves to be more of an epistemic
authority in the disciplinary knowledge domain than in the general knowledge
domain. Teachers of mathematics perceived themselves to be more of an epistemic
authority to their students in the disciplinary knowledge domain than teachers
of other subject matters. This indicates that mathematics teachers perceive their
discipline differently than do other teachers and, because of the status of their dis-
cipline as an exact science, they perceive themselves to be knowledgeable experts.
With regard to general knowledge, no difference among the teachers of the four
subject matters was found. It is possible that all the teachers view themselves as
‘educators’ and many of them fulfill the role of homeroom instructor. Thus, they
do not relate their self-perception as epistemic authorities in general knowledge
domains to the nature of the subject matter they teach, but to their role as teachers.
This finding corroborates the results of a study by Strauss and Shilony (1994), who
hypothesized that teachers of different subject matters have different mental models
of how their students learn and what the role of instruction is, but these differences
were not confirmed by their findings, which showed that teachers of different
subject matters share a common model of children’s minds and of learning.
Not surprisingly, the factor personal efficacy on the teacher efficacy scale was
found to be the best predictor of teachers’ self-perception as epistemic authorities.
This factor refers to their personal beliefs about their own skills and abilities to
38 AMIRAM RAVIV ET AL.

bring about student learning (Gibson & Dembo, 1984). The results indicate that
teachers who believe that they have an influence on their students also perceive
themselves as epistemic authorities for their students. Indeed, in other studies, this
particular factor was found to be related to instructional experimentation, including
the willingness to try alternative materials and approaches, as well as organization,
planning, clarity, and enthusiasm in teaching (e.g., Allinder, 1994).

4.3. COMPARISONS AMONG THE THREE PERSPECTIVES

Finally, the comparisons among the three perspectives indicate that students in the
present study perceived teachers as having less epistemic authority than did the
teachers perceive themselves, except in the case of history teachers in the disci-
plinary knowledge domain. Also, all teachers except for biology teachers believed
their students perceived them as more of an epistemic authority than they perceived
themselves to be. This ego-enhancement result replicates the results of a line of
studies that demonstrate that teachers perceive themselves in a more positive light
than their students perceive them (e.g., Raviv, Bar-Tal, Raviv, & Houminer, 1990).
The findings of the present study together with other observations show that
teachers not only overrate themselves, but that they also greatly overestimate their
students’ positive perception of them. These findings can be explained by two
complementary processes. The ego-enhancement explanation suggests that teach-
ers’ perceptions are partly determined by ego enhancement needs, as are people’s
attitudes and beliefs in general (Hoorens, 1995). Individuals tend to magnify their
successes, influence, status, or achievements in order to be able to view themselves
positively. The other explanation, that is, self-protection, suggests that teachers,
like other human beings, protect their perceived role performance in order to avoid
realization of failure. Knowledge transmission is viewed by many educators as the
focal aspect of teachers’ role performance (Schulman, 1987), and so the realization
that students do not perceive them as epistemic authorities may be a threatening
experience. Thus, in order to protect their self-professional view, teachers attribute
a high degree of epistemic authority to themselves and also believe that students
perceive them in the same way.
In sum, the conception of epistemic authority and the reported study shed new
light on the perception of teachers’ role enactment. This conception focuses on
teachers’ transmission of knowledge and the implications of that role, providing a
lens through which we may investigate factors that influence students’ and teach-
ers’ evaluations of pedagogical roles. The notion of epistemic authority also gener-
ates some crucial questions: Is the perception of epistemic authority functional to
the type of education that school systems should provide in the new millennium?
Many educators believe that the role of teachers as epistemic authorities should
be complex, that is, not only reflected in their disciplinary knowledge but also in
their knowledge of how to help their students understand the subject matter. Such
‘expertise’ consists of the knowledge of the learner, knowledge of the curriculum,
TEACHERS’ EPISTEMIC AUTHORITY 39

knowledge of the context, and knowledge of pedagogy (e.g., Wilson, Schulman,

& Richert, 1987). In addition, there are schools of thought that urge teachers to
enable students to construct their knowledge mainly via self-learning, observation,
and experience (Ratner, 1995). Nevertheless, there is substantial agreement that
the reliance on teacher knowledge and self-knowledge should be accompanied by
openness and skepticism (McPeck, 1981; Baron & Sternberg, 1987). In any event,
the educational systems will have to adapt the role of teachers as knowledge trans-
mitters and mediators to the parameters of the changing environment and students’
needs.

References
Abraham, A. (1974). Teachers’ inner world. Tel Aviv: Otsar Hamoreh (in Hebrew).
Allinder, R.M. (1994). The relationship between efficacy and the instructional practices of special
education and consultants. Teacher Education and Special Education, 1, 86–95.
Ashton, P.T. & Webb, R.B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers’ sense of efficacy and student
achievement. New York: Longmont.
Askell-Williams, H. & Lawson, M.J. (2002). Mapping students’ perception of interesting class
lessons. Social Psychology of Education, 5, 127–147.
Baron, J. & Sternberg, R. (Eds.) (1987). Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice. New York:
Freeman.
Bar-Tal, D. & Guttmann, J. (1981). A comparison of teachers’, pupils’ and parents’ attribu-
tions regarding pupils’ academic achievements. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51,
301–311.
Bar-Tal, D., Darom, E., & Sorek, J. (1978). Educational national and social attitudes of high school
teachers. Tel Aviv: School of Education, Tel Aviv University (in Hebrew).
Bar-Tal, D., Raviv, A., Raviv, A., & Brosh, M. (1991). Perception of epistemic authority and at-
tribution for its choice as a function of knowledge area and age. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 21, 477–492.
Berliner, D.C. (1983). Developing conceptions of classroom environments: Some light on the T in
classroom studies of ATI. Educational Psychologist, 18, 1–13.
Berman, P., McLaughlin, M., Bass, G., Pauly, E., & Zellman, G. (1977). Federal programs support-
ing educational change. Vol. VII. Factors affecting implementation and continuation (Rep. No.
R-1589/7-HEW0). Santa Monica, CA: Eric Document Reproduction Service No. 140432.
Blumenfield, P.C., Puro, P., & Mergendoller, J.R. (1992). Translating motivation into thoughtfulness.
In H.H. Marshall (Ed.), Redefining student learning: Roots of educational change. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex; pp. 207–239.
Brophy, J. & Good, T. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teaching. New York: Macmillan; pp. 329–375.
Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers’ sense efficacy and commitment to teaching. Journal of Experimental
Education, 60, 323–337.
Damon, W. (1983). Social and personality development. New York: W.W. Norton.
Damon, W. & Hart, D. (1988). Self-understanding in childhood and adolescence. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Darom, E. & Rich, Y. (1988). Sex differences in attitudes toward school: Student self-reports and
teacher perceptions. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 58, 350–355.
Donnelly, J. (1999). Interpreting differences: The educational aims of teachers of science and history,
and their implications. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31, 17–41.
Doyle (1986). Student evaluation of instruction. Massachusetts: Lexington Books.
40 AMIRAM RAVIV ET AL.

Emler, N., Ohana, J., & Moscovici, S. (1987). Children’s beliefs about institutional roles: A cross-
national study of representations of the teacher’s role. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
57(1), 26–37.
Emmer, E.T., Evertson, C.M., & Brophy, J.E. (1979). Stability of teacher effects in junior high
classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 16(1), 71–75.
Eylon, T. (1995). The relation between professional efficacy of teachers and attitudes toward con-
sultation. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Psychology, Tel Aviv University, Israel
(in Hebrew).
Fiedler (1975). Bidirectionality of influence in classroom interaction. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 67(6), 735–744.
Gardner, H. (1999). The disciplined mind: What all students should understand. New York: Simon
& Schuster.
Gibson, S. & Dembo, M.H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 76, 569–582.
Good, T.L., Biddle, B.J., & Brophy, J.E. (1975). Teachers make a difference. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
Goodenow, C. (1992). Strengthening the links between educational psychology and the study of
social contexts. Educational Psychologist, 27, 177–196.
Gump, P.V. (1967). The classroom behavior setting: Its nature and relation to student behavior. U.S.
Office of Education, Bureau of Research (U.S. Office of Education, Project No. 2453, Contract
No. OE-4-10-107). ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 015 515.
Guskey, T.R. (1984). The influence of change in instructional effectiveness upon the affective
characteristics of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 245–259.
Hoorens, V. (1995). Self-favoring biases, self-presentation, and the self-other asymmetry in social-
comparison. Journal of Personality, 63(4), 793–817.
Husbands, C.T. (1996). What is history teaching? Language, ideas and meaning in learning about
the past. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Inhelder, B. & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence: An
essay on the construction of formal operational structures. New York: Basic Books.
Irvine, J.J. (1986). Teacher-student interactions: Effects of student race, sex, and grade level. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 78, 14–21.
Izraeli, D., Friedman, A., & Shift, R. (1982). Women in a bind: The status of women in Israel. Tel
Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad (in Hebrew).
Izraeli, D.N., Friedman, A., Dahan-Kalev, H., Fogiel-Bijaoni, S., Herzog, H., Hsan, M., & Naveh, H.
(1999). Sex gender politics, women in Israel. Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad (in Hebrew).
Johnson, T.J., Feigenbaum, R., & Wiley, M. (1964). Some determinants and consequences of
teachers’ perception of causation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 55, 237–246.
Jules, V. & Kutnick, P. (1997). Student perceptions of a good teacher: The gender perspective. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 497–511.
Kassin, S.M. (1981) From laychild to ‘layman’: Developmental causal attribution. In S.S. Brehm,
S.M. Kassin, & F.X. Gibbons (Eds.), Developmental social psychology. New York: Oxford
University Press; pp. 169–190.
Kruglanski, A.W. (1989). Lay epistemics and human knowledge: Cognitive and motivational bases.
New York: Plenum Press.
Kruglanski, A.W. (1990). Motivations for judging and knowing: Implications for causal attribution.
In: E.T. Higgins & R.M. Sorrentino, (Eds.), Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations
of social behavior (Vol. 2). New York: The Guilford Press; pp. 333–368.
Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kutnick, P. (1980). The conception of school authority: The socialization of the primary school child.
Genetic Psychology Monographs, 101, 35–70.
TEACHERS’ EPISTEMIC AUTHORITY 41

Levine, J.M., Resnick, L.B., & Higgins, E.T. (1993). Social foundations of cognition. Annual Review
of Psychology, 44, 585–612.
Lodahl, J.B. & Gordon, G. (1972). The structure of scientific fields and the functioning of university
graduate departments. American Sociological Review, 37, 57–72.
McPeck, J. (1981). Critical thinking and education. New York: St. Martin.
Ministry of Education and Culture (1990). Biology: Outlines curriculums, subjects, and contents.
Jerusalem: Ministry of Education and Culture (in Hebrew).
Offer, D., Ostrov, E., Howard, K.I., & Atkinson, R. (1988). The teenage world: Adolescents’ self-
image in ten countries. New York: Plenum.
Peirce, C.S. (1976). The new elements of mathematics. Hague: Mourton.
Piaget, J. (1970). Piaget’s theory. In P. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael manual of child psychology (3rd
edn, Vol. 1). New York: Wiley; pp. 703–732.
Ratner, N. (1995). Developing inquiry skills in students in high-level biology course according to
an inquiry-oriented program compared with students in a high-level chemistry and/or physics
course with no special emphasis on inquiry. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, School of Education,
Tel Aviv University, Israel (in Hebrew).
Raviv, A., Raviv, A., & Reisel, E. (1990). Teachers and students: Two different perspectives?
Measuring social climate in the classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 27,
141–157.
Raviv, A., Bar-Tal, D., Raviv, A., & Abin, R. (1993). Measuring epistemic authority of politicians
and professors. European Journal of Personality, 7, 119–138.
Raviv, A., Bar-Tal, D., Raviv, A., & Houminer, D. (1990). Development in children’s perceptions of
epistemic authorities. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 8, 157–169.
Raviv, A., Bar-Tal, D., Raviv, A., & Peleg, D. (1990). Perception of epistemic authorities by children
and adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 19, 495–510.
Ross, J.A. (1992). Teacher efficacy and the effect of coaching on student achievement. Canadian
Journal of Education, 17, 51–65.
Ruble, D.N. & Martin, C.L. (1998). Gender development. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg
(Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology. Social, emotional and personality development (5th
edn, Vol. 3). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Schulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Found of the new reform. Harvard Educational
Review, 57, 1–22.
Schulman, L.S. & Quinlan, K.M. (1996). The comparative psychology of school subjects. In D.C.
Berliner & R.C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology. New York: Simon &
Schuster Macmillan; pp. 399–422.
Smetana, J.G. (1995). Morality in context: Abstractions, ambiguities, and application. In R. Vasta
(Ed.), Annals of child development (Vol. 10). London: Jessica Kingsley; pp. 83–130.
Smetana, J.G. & Bitz, B. (1996). Adolescents’ conceptions of teachers’ authority and their relations
to rule violations in school. Child Development, 67, 1153–1172.
Strauss, S. (1993). Teachers’ pedagogical content of knowledge bout children’s minds and learning:
Implications for teacher education. Educational Psychologist, 28, 179–290.
Strauss, S. & Shilony, T. (1994). Teachers’ models of children’s minds and learning. In L.A.
Hirschfeld & S.A. Gelman (Eds.), Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and
culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; pp. 455–473.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, W.A., & Hoy, W.K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure.
Review of Educational Research, 68, 202–248.
Turiel, E. (1983). The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Weinstein, C.S. (1991). The classroom as a social context for learning. Annual Review of Psychology,
42, 493–525.
 42 AMIRAM RAVIV ET AL.

Wilson, S.M., Schulman, L.S., & Richert, A.E. (1987). ‘150 Different ways’ of knowing: Representa-
tions of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachers’ thinking. London:
Cassell Educational Limited.
Yaakobi, D. & Sharan, S. (1985). Teacher beliefs and practices: The discipline carries the message.
Journal of Education for Teaching, 11, 187–199.
Yoels, W.C. (1974). The structure of scientific fields and the allocation of editorships on scientific
journals: Some on the politics of knowledge. Sociological Quarterly, 15, 246–276.
Zuckerman, H. & Merton, R.K. (1971). Patterns of evaluation in science: Instrumentalization
structure and function of the referee system. Minerva, 9, 66–101.

Biographical Notes
Amiram Raviv is a clinical and school psychologist. He is Professor in the
Psychology Department at Tel Aviv University, and is currently the Chair of the
Department. His research interest is mainly in school psychology and knowledge
formation.
Daniel Bar-Tal is Professor of Psychology in the School of Education and
Director of the Walter Lebach Institute for Jewish-Arab Coexistence through Edu-
cation, Tel Aviv University. His research interest focuses on knowledge formation.
Alona Raviv is Senior Teacher in the Department of Statistics & Operations
Research at Tel Aviv University.
Braha Biran and Zvia Sela received their M.A. from the Counseling Program
at Tel Aviv University. They presently work as school counselors in the Israeli
educational system.

View publication stats