Yilmaz (IJSE-2007)

This article was downloaded by:[University of Barcelona]
On: 18 February 2008

Access Details: [subscription number 777445744]
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of Science

Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713737283
Relationships among Preservice Science Teachers'
Epistemological Beliefs, Epistemological World Views,
and Self-efficacy Beliefs
Ozgul Yilmaz-Tuzun a; Mustafa Sami Topcu b
a
Middle East Technical University, Turkey
b
Yuzuncu Yil Universitesi, Turkey
First Published on: 23 May 2007

To cite this Article: Yilmaz-Tuzun, Ozgul and Topcu, Mustafa Sami (2007)
'Relationships among Preservice Science Teachers' Epistemological Beliefs,
Epistemological World Views, and Self-efficacy Beliefs', International Journal of
Science Education, 30:1, 65 - 85
To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/09500690601185113
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690601185113
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,
re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be
complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be
independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or
arising out of the use of this material.
International Journal of Science Education
Vol. 30, No. 1, 15 January 2008, pp. 65–85
Downloaded By: [University of Barcelona] At: 07:25 18 February 2008
RESEARCH REPORT
Relationships among Preservice

Science Teachers’ Epistemological
Beliefs, Epistemological World Views,
and Self-efficacy Beliefs
Ozgul Yilmaz-Tuzuna* and Mustafa Sami Topcub
aMiddle East Technical University, Turkey; bYuzuncu Yil Universitesi, Turkey
Taylor
ozgul@metu.edu.tr
OzgulYilmaz-Tuzun
0000002007
00
International
10.1080/09500690601185113
TSED_A_218434.sgm
0950-0693
Original
2007 &
andFrancis
Article
(print)/1464-5289
Francis
Journal of Science
(online)
Education
This study discusses preservice elementary science teachers’ (PSTs) epistemological beliefs and
the relationships among their epistemological beliefs, epistemological world views, and self-efficacy
beliefs. Four hundred and twenty-nine PSTs who were enrolled in five large universities completed
the Schommer Epistemological Questionnaire (SEQ), the Epistemological World Views Scale,
and the Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument. Factor analysis results revealed four factors
for the SEQ. These factors were Innate Ability, Simple Knowledge, Certain Knowledge, and
Omniscient authority. Multiple regression analysis suggests that for “Innate Ability” factor scores,
three of the predictor variables—self-efficacy, outcome expectancy, and world view—contributed
significantly to the model. For “Simple Knowledge,” only one predictor variable—epistemological
world view—contributed significantly to the model. For “Certain Knowledge” factor scores, only
one predictor variable—outcome expectancy—contributed significantly to the model. None of the
predictor variables significantly contributed to the “Omniscient Authority” factor scores. Results
revealed that in Turkish culture, PSTs’ epistemological beliefs support the multidimensional
theory. In addition, while PSTs developed more sophisticated beliefs in some of the SEQ dimen-
sions, they had less sophisticated beliefs in other dimensions. Also PSTs indicated that, when they
want to teach science with student-centered methods, they believed that they would be successful
only if their students memorize the scientific concepts and facts.
Introduction
Epistemological Beliefs
The term epistemology can be defined as “the origin, nature, limits, methods, and
justification of human knowledge” (Hofer, 2002, p. 4). The epistemological belief
*Corresponding author. Department of Elementary Education, Middle East Technical University,

06531 Ankara, Turkey. Email: ozgul@metu.edu.tr
ISSN 0950-0693 (print)/ISSN 1464-5289 (online)/08/010065–21

© 2008 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/09500690601185113
66 O. Yilmaz-Tuzun and M. S. Topcu
refers to specific belief that people hold about nature of knowledge (Schraw & Olaf-
son, 2002). A person holds several epistemological beliefs at the same time, and
those beliefs shape that person’s epistemology. Personal epistemological beliefs are
classified under different headings by different researchers (King & Kitchener, 2004;
Perry, 1968; Schommer, 1990). Schommer identified five independent beliefs,
which are Certain Knowledge, Simple Knowledge, Innate Ability, Quick Learning,
and Omniscient Authority. In each dimension, people may possess a range of beliefs.
For example, a science teacher’s belief about Certain Knowledge may fall in any
place in the continuum of seeing science as unchanging to changing.
Research on the nature of knowledge, epistemology, started with Perry (1968).
Since then personal epistemologies have been defined in two different ways. In one
definition, researchers have viewed personal epistemologies as developmental stages
(e.g., Kegan, 1982; King & Kitchener, 2004; Perry, 1970). In this definition,
personal epistemologies develop in parallel with individual cognitive development.
For example, King and Kitchener (1994) proposed a seven-stage developmental
scheme for personal epistemologies. At the first stage, children view knowledge as
certain and given by authorities. At a later stage, knowledge is seen as cumulative
constructions of observations but subject to judgment by different individuals.
Researchers, who accept this development scheme also view personal epistemologies
as unidimensional constructs in which an individual passes through these stages
based on their cognitive development. In other words, it is not usual for a person to
pass on a later stage of epistemological understanding without accomplishing an
earlier stage.
Another group of researchers defined the personal epistemologies as collection of
beliefs (e.g., Schommer, 1988; Schommer & Walker, 1997; Schraw, Dunkle, &
Bendixen, 1995). Schommer (1990) defined the epistemological beliefs as beliefs
about the nature of knowledge. It was argued that individuals may develop epistemo-
logical beliefs about the certainty, the source, the justification, the acquisition, and
the structure of knowledge. These dimensions of knowledge led researchers to define
epistemological beliefs from a multidimensional perspective. Unidimensional theory
already accepts that personal epistemologies are complex cognitive developments and
multifaceted. One difference between unidimensional and multidimensional theory
is how people develop or gain epistemological views or beliefs. Unidimensional theory
argues that people attain different dimensions of epistemological understanding at
their cognitive development. In other words, if a person develops earlier stages of
epistemological understanding, she will also develop later stages. In contrast, multi-
dimensional theory suggests that if a person develops a dimension of epistemological
beliefs, he/she may or may not develop other dimension(s).
Students’ epistemological beliefs were explored using both quantitative and
qualitative research methods (e.g., King, 1986; Perry, 1968; Schommer, 1990).
Schommer’s studies pioneered the quantitative measurement of epistemological
beliefs on multidimensional perspectives. In her studies, Schommer validated an
epistemological questionnaire she had developed. The questionnaire used by
Schommer (1990, 1993), Schommer-Aikins (2004), Schommer, Crouse, and
Preservice Teachers’ Epistemological Beliefs 67
Rhodes (1992), and Schommer, Calvert, Gariglietti, and Bajaj (1997) has five
hypothesized epistemological beliefs. These hypothesized beliefs are: (a) the stability
of knowledge ranging from unchanging knowledge (simple, less sophisticated belief)
to tentative knowledge (developed and sophisticated belief)—Certain Knowledge;
(b) the structure of knowledge ranging from isolated bits and pieces (simple, less
sophisticated belief) to integrated concepts (developed and sophisticated belief)—
Simple Knowledge; (c) the source of knowledge ranging from omniscient authority
to reason (simple, less sophisticated belief) and empirical evidence (developed and
sophisticated belief)—Omniscient Authority; (d) the speed of learning ranging from
quick (simple, less sophisticated belief) or not-at-all to gradual (developed and
sophisticated belief)—Quick Learning; and (e) the ability to learn ranging from fixed
at birth (simple, less sophisticated belief) to improvable (developed and sophisti-
cated belief)—Innate Ability.
Schommer carried out several studies to validate the questionnaire. In these stud-
ies, four factors were generally obtained but the names of those factors were different
from one study to another, depending upon the sample characteristics, its size, and
the nature of the research. For example, in one of Schommer’s (1990) studies, she
worked with 117 junior college students and 149 university students. Factor analysis
generated four factors for this group of students. Factor 1 was “Ability to learn is
innate” (Innate Ability); Factor 2 was “Knowledge is discrete and unambiguous”
(Simple Knowledge); Factor 3 was “Learning is quick or not at all” (Quick Learning);
and Factor 4 was “Knowledge is certain” (Certain knowledge). Schommer et al.
(1992) worked with 424 undergraduate and graduate students. Schommer’s original
questionnaire was reaffirmed to assess students’ epistemological beliefs. This time
three factors were generated. Factor 1 was “learning is innate and quick” (Innate
Ability). Factor 2 was “knowledge is discrete and unambiguous” (Simple Knowl-
edge). Factor 3 was “knowledge is certain and questionable” (Certain Knowledge).
Epistemological World Views

Epistemological world views represent the sum of teachers’ collective beliefs and
assumptions about knowledge and knowledge acquisition (Schraw & Olafson,
2002). Based on their assumptions Scraw and Olafson divided these collective
beliefs into three categories; namely, realist, contextualist, and relativist. Each
category included a set of epistemological beliefs and other beliefs such as how epis-
temological beliefs are acquired and develop, and how these beliefs change over
time. Thus teachers with realist world view see themselves as active in their teaching
because their role is to transmit knowledge to students, who are seen as passive
recipients of the knowledge. Teachers with contextualist world view focus on
constructing knowledge and extending the application of that knowledge into the
context it is learned in. Teachers with relativist world view provide opportunities to
students to learn and think independently.
There are certain differences between epistemological beliefs and epistemological
world views. Epistemological beliefs consist of specific beliefs that possess certain
characteristics of knowledge such as certainty, simplicity, or origin. Epistemological

world views consist of beliefs that determine individuals’ attitude toward the nature
and the acquisition of knowledge (Schraw & Olafson, 2002). Previous studies used
different terminology, but in this study we preferred to use “world view” since this
term was used by Schraw and Olafson. The term epistemological world view was
used for two reasons. First was that “a world view suggests a broad intellectual
perspective that serves as a lens to see the world than transcends individual beliefs
about knowledge,” and the second was that “it is easier from a practical perspective
to communicate with teachers and students what we mean by a world view as
opposed to a stance or way of knowing” (Schraw & Olafson, 2002, p. 103).
Our literature review revealed that there are few studies (Schraw & Olafson, 2002;
Tsai, 2002) conducted to measure inservice and preservice teachers’ epistemological
world views. However, it is possible that there is a relation between teachers’ episte-
mological world views and students’ learning. Schraw and Olafson assumed that if
teachers believe in a relativist epistemological world view, they would organize their
classroom in accordance with the constructivist and inquiry-oriented practices.
Consequently, such a learning environment could provide students opportunities to
learn concepts more effectively. However, Schraw and Olafson found that epistemo-
logical world views were not strongly related to teaching practices. For instance,
even though teachers indicated that they believed in the effectiveness of student-
centered teaching approaches (developing relativist world view), they still used
district-wide mandated curriculum and expository teaching practices. Thus, science
educators should help teachers develop essential skills in order to apply required
teaching practices that are aligned with their epistemological world views. At their
teacher education programs, preservice science teachers (PSTs) need to be guided
by their instructors. However, in the first place those beliefs need to be determined.
Self-efficacy Beliefs
For over 40 years many researchers defined the teachers’ efficacy beliefs. According
to Rotter (1966), teacher efficacy beliefs were referred to as teachers’ beliefs about
controlling students’ achievement and motivation. Another group of researchers
defined teacher efficacy as teachers’ beliefs about their capacity to affect students’
performance (Berman, Mclaughlin, Bass, Pauly, & Zellman, 1977). Bandura (1977,
cited in Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998) sees teacher efficacy as part of self
efficacy. Self-efficacy is defined as a cognitive process in which individuals develop
their beliefs based on their abilities to accomplish certain tasks. Thus, people’s
behaviors are influenced by their self-efficacy beliefs. These behaviors can be
summarized as the effort that people put forward to do certain tasks, the duration of
their persistence on the tasks despite of obstacles, their strength in dealing with
unsuccessful attempts, and the amount of stress they can handle in demanding
situations (Bandura, 1997, cited in Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). Since all these
behaviors are performed in classroom environment, teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs
play an important role in determining effectiveness of their teaching.
Bandura stated that in order to perform certain behaviors people need to possess
both self-efficacy and belief in desired outcomes, because “people not only expect
certain behaviors to produce desirable outcomes (outcome expectancy), but they
also believe in their own ability to perform the behaviors (self-efficacy)” (Bandura,
1977, cited in Riggs & Enochs, 1990, p. 626). For example, a science teacher could
decide to implement inquiry teaching in his/her classroom. His/her self-efficacy
beliefs refer to his/her beliefs about his/her ability in successfully implementing
inquiry method in her classroom. His/her outcome expectancy beliefs refer to his/her
beliefs about her ability to develop inquiry skills (such as observing, carrying out
investigation, and developing hypothesis) on students. Gibson and Dembo (1984)
emphasized the importance of these beliefs for the teachers to have confidence in
their own teaching abilities and encouraging positive student learning outcomes.
Numerous research studies have indicated that teachers’ self-efficacy influences their
effectiveness in their teaching, students’ academic success, and development of
affective skills as much as cognitive skills (e.g., Ashton & Webb, 1986; Tschannen-
Moran et al., 1998; Woolfolk, Rosoff, & Hoy, 1990).
The issue of teachers’ self-efficacy has been explored by a number of authors in a
range of settings (i.e., Ashton & Webb, 1986; Dembo & Gibson, 1985; Riggs &
Enochs, 1990; Lumpe, Haney, & Czerniak, 2000; Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990). In the
past decade, researchers in science education have made extensive use of one partic-
ular self-efficacy instrument, the Science Teachers Efficacy Beliefs Instrument
(STEBI), which was developed by Enochs and Riggs (Enochs & Riggs, 1990; Riggs
& Enochs, 1990). The authors first developed the STEBI instrument for inservice
teachers (STEBI-A). Later, they revised this instrument for preservice science teach-
ers and named it STEBI-B. One of the strengths of the STEBI instruments is their
theoretical base; why and how items were authored for the instrument, as discussed
by Enochs and Riggs (1990). Enochs and Riggs created two dimensions: (1) self-
efficacy beliefs, and (2) outcome expectancy beliefs. In their categorization, they
used self-efficacy and outcome expectancy components of Bandura’s social cognitive
theory in their instrument. In this instrument, teachers’ self-efficacy and outcome
expectancy beliefs are assumed independent of each other. In other words, some
teachers may believe teaching is effective in students’ academic success but they may
not possess the necessary skills to influence their students’ learning (Ashton &
Webb, 1986). Analysis of this instrument by many research studies successfully
revealed that self-efficacy and outcome expectancy were found as two distinct
dimensions in the instrument (e.g., Cannon & Scharmann, 1996; Desouza, Boone,
& Yilmaz, 2004; Ginns & Watters, 1996; Ramey-Gassert, Shroyer, & Staver, 1996;
Scharmann & Hampton, 1995; Settlage, 2000).
We believe that PSTs’ epistemological beliefs may influence their self-efficacy in
teaching and students’ outcome expectancy beliefs. For example, we think that if a
teacher holds less sophisticated beliefs about Certain Knowledge, he or she may
have high self-efficacy in teaching science as unchanging knowledge (Certain
Knowledge). Therefore, in this study, we aimed at exploring direction and
magnitude of the relations between epistemological beliefs and self-efficacy beliefs.
Study Purpose and Rationale

The rationale of this study is two-fold. Firstly it is related to characteristics of

Turkey, and secondly it considers the relationship of the factors being explored
in this study.
There are several reasons that we investigated Turkish preservice elementary
science teachers’ beliefs regarding epistemology, self-efficacy, and epistemological
world views. First, as it was stated by Schommer (1994), epistemological beliefs are
influenced by education and culture. Since there are not many studies about devel-
opment of individual epistemological beliefs in Turkey and about how Turkish
educational system and culture contributed to this development, it is important to
investigate Turkish preservice teachers’ epistemological beliefs. Findings from this
study could be used to support the ongoing reform efforts in science and technol-
ogy education. Second, Turkey presents some interesting and unique characteris-
tics. Turkey has traditionally been influenced by the East and the West; thus
epistemological data from the Turkish context could provide possible differences
between the East and the West. Finally, Turkey is currently redesigning aspects of
its educational policy with regard to teachers and students. Thus, the findings of
this study are of great value in terms of guiding such efforts at the local and
national level.
We believe that teachers’ epistemological beliefs, epistemological world views,
and self-efficacy beliefs may be related to each other. Epistemological beliefs refer
to teachers’ beliefs about the nature of knowledge (Simple Knowledge, Certain
Knowledge, Innate Ability, Omniscient Authority, Quick Learning). Possessing a
particular belief about the nature of knowledge may influence teachers’ epistemo-
logical world views (relativist, realist, contextualist). For example, if a teacher holds
a less sophisticated belief about Omniscient Authority, in which this teacher
believes that scientific knowledge is held by authority, we may expect this teacher
to hold a realist world view, in which he or she transfers to students the scientific
knowledge discovered by scientists. Since epistemological world views are related to
teaching practices, this teacher’s epistemological world view may influence his or
her self-efficacy beliefs. But one needs to be careful in investigating the relation-
ships among these constructs, because they can occur in any direction. For
instance, in the example above this direction is given as epistemological beliefs →
epistemological world views → self-efficacy beliefs. However, this relationship may
occur in any combination of these factors in different magnitudes. Thus, direction
and magnitude of the relationships among these factors were examined in this
study.
This study aimed to determine PSTs’ epistemological beliefs and examine
the relationships among epistemological beliefs, epistemological world views,
and self-efficacy. The research questions of this study were: (1) What types of
epistemological beliefs do PSTs develop?, and (2) What are the relationships
among epistemological beliefs, epistemological world views, and self-efficacy
beliefs?
Method
Sample
The Schommer Epistemological Questionnaire (SEQ) was administered to 429
PSTs of five research universities located in three large cities in Turkey: Ankara,
Eskisehir, and Van. Of the 429 participants, 246 were female and 183 were male.
Cities were selected purposefully to gather data from the Western (Eskisehir),
Middle (Ankara), and Eastern (Van) parts of Turkey. Our reason of selecting
universities from the different regions was to generalize our findings to the larger
population in Turkey. Moreover, selecting different regions enabled us to represent
Turkey culturally better. With this data collection strategy we were able to capture
different experiences gained by PSTs in different universities. However, we did not
treat region as one of our independent variables in this study because our purpose
was to capture a holistic view of Turkey. Ankara, the capital city of Turkey, has
many universities. Data for this city were collected from three large research
universities to represent the students’ characteristics. A total of 324 preservice
teachers participated from these three universities. The other two cities have only
one research universities each; therefore, from each of these cities, only one univer-
sity was enrolled. Thirty-five preservice teachers from Eskisehir and 70 preservice
teachers from Van participated in the study. All of the universities were state
universities. All students were voluntarily involved in the study.
Instruments
Schommer Epistemological Questionnaire. Schommer (1990) developed the SEQ to
measure college students’ epistemological beliefs. The questionnaire includes 63
items. For each item, students select one of the five options (strongly disagree, disagree,
undecided, agree, and strongly agree). We scored strongly disagree as 1 and strongly agree
as 5. Thus, a participant who got a higher score from the survey would be thought of
as having a simple or less sophisticated knowledge. There are 12 subsets in the ques-
tionnaire. For each subset, the number of items differs. The SEQ was translated into
Turkish and validated earlier (Topcu & Yilmaz-Tuzun, 2006). Translation of the
SEQ into Turkish was done by two researchers, whose native language was Turkish.
Once the Turkish translation was done, the original and translated questionnaires
were examined by a bilingual assistant professor, who was an expert on epistemolog-
ical issues and the nature of science and currently conducting his studies in the USA.
At the end of this process, agreement was established on each item. Once the trans-
lation was done, a pilot study was conducted with 94 preservice science teachers. For
further validity of the scale we conducted a factor analysis. Similar to Schommer’s
study we successfully captured the epistemological beliefs possessed by PSTs in the
Turkish context. Item reliability was calculated for each factor. Since all items worked
in the expected direction, we decided to keep all of them for this study.
In Schommer (1990) and Schommer et al. (1992), 12 subsets, presented in Table
1, were classified into their hypothetical dimensions mentioned earlier. Schommer
Table 1. Hypothetical dimensions and associated subsets of the epistemological questionnaire

Subset dimension Hypothetical dimension
Simple Knowledge Seek single answers

Avoid integration
Certain Knowledge Avoid ambiguity
Knowledge is certain
Omniscient Authority Do not criticize authority
Depend on authority
Can not learn how to learn
Innate Ability Success is unrelated to hard work
Ability to learn is innate
Learning is quick
Quick Learning Learn first time
Concentrated effort is a waste of time
theoretically put these 12 subsets into their best defined hypothetical dimensions.
During the analysis, she focused to find out the degree to which these 12 subsets
loaded into their hypothetical dimensions.
The reliability of the SEQ was measured by inter-item reliability for the items
composing each factor, ranging from .51–.78 (Schommer, 1993). To validate the
SEQ, Schommer carried out numerous studies summarized in the introduction. In
those studies, she computed factor analysis and often found three or four factors.
These factors were, namely, Innate Ability, Simple Knowledge, Quick Learning, and
Certain Knowledge. She could not find Omniscient Authority as one individual
factor in any of her studies since the subsets did not load into this hypothetical
dimension.
Epistemological World View scale. This scale focuses on three different epistemological
world views. Schraw and Olafson (2002) named these views as realist, contextualist,
and relativist. These world views were defined as:
Realist: ‘Realists believe that there is a fixed, core body of knowledge that is best
acquired through experts via transmission and reconstruction.’
Contextualists: ‘Contextualists believe that learners construct shared understandings in
supportive contexts in which teachers serve as facilitators.’
Relativists: ‘Relativists believe that each learner constructs a unique knowledge base
that is different but equal to other learners’ knowledge.’ (Schraw & Olafson, 2002,
p.101)
If teachers hold a realist world view, they use teacher-centered methods mostly and
view their students as passive recipients of knowledge. These teachers assess their
students’ learning using norm-referenced tests, such as standardized tests. Their
purposes are to compare students’ learning with each other and the amount of
information they learn from a specific unit. If teachers hold a contextualist world
view, they give importance to the learning process rather than the type of knowledge
that students need to learn. In this learning process, teachers accept their role as
facilitator and encourage peer support and expert scaffolding in their classrooms. If
teachers hold a relativist world view, they create an environment where students can
construct their own knowledge independently but equal to other learners’ knowl-
edge. Thus, teachers mostly use student-centered teaching methods. In this learning
process, teachers support students’ self-regulation, which enables students to learn
knowledge by themselves in the future. To assess students’ learning, teachers use
criterion-based assessment strategies according to students’ needs (Schraw &
Olafson, 2002). The terms realist, contextualist, and relativist were selected for this
study because they are the most frequently repeated terms across the literature. This
instrument includes three vignettes. For each vignette, a five-choice, three-item
Likert-type scale was used.
For the validity of the translation of the Epistemological World View scale, a
procedure similar to that for the SEQ was followed.
Self-efficacy scale. The respondents in the study completed the STEBI-B (preservice
version) developed by Riggs and Enochs (1990). The two scales in the STEBI-B
were entitled Personal Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Scale (self-efficacy dimen-
sion) and Science Teaching Outcome Expectancy Scale (outcome expectancy
dimension). The STEBI-B was a five-choice Likert-scale. This instrument used a
five-choice, 23-item Likert-scale. The self-efficacy dimension had 13 items and the
outcome expectancy dimension had 10 items. Riggs and Enochs reported that the
items in the self-efficacy scale and the outcome expectancy scale had high reliabili-
ties (.89 and .76, respectively). Appropriate changes in the wording of the items
were made for the Turkish teachers in a previous study (Tekkaya, Cakiroglu, &
Ozkan, 2004).
Data Collection and Analysis

Data collection was carried out during the fall semester of 2006. An assistant at each
university administered the scale. The response rate was 80% for each of the data
collection sites. In order to assure the consistency of the data collection procedures,
each assistant was informed about the administration of the scale. Assistants
explained the study purpose to the students in classes and invited them to participate
in the study voluntarily. Students who have agreed to participate completed the
questionnaire in classes while the assistants were present in order to answer any of
the students’ questions. Assistants collected the completed questionnaire forms and
mailed them to the authors.
In the first part of the data analysis, factor analysis was computed to determine the
factor structure of the SEQ in the Turkish context. This analysis enabled us to
compare our results with the previous research findings. In factor analysis, once the
factor structure was determined, factor scores were calculated for each factor. For
later analysis, these factor scores were used.

In the second part of the data analysis, multiple regression analysis was conducted
to better understand how the predictor variables might be associated with each
factor score of the SEQ. A statistical stepwise regression strategy was used to deter-
mine the best model associated with each factor scores of the SEQ. In this analysis,
predictor variables were inserted into the model based upon the statistical criteria.
When a stepwise strategy is used to investigate a data-set similar to that presented in
this paper, a regression analysis is initiated with no variable, and each predictor
variable is added to the equation, one at a time, to determine whether the predictor
variable significantly contributes to the regression equation (Tabachnick & Fidel,
2001). For all of our analyses, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)
version 13.0 for Windows was used.
Results
Factor Structure of the SEQ
Factor analysis enabled us to determine the number and the characteristics of factors
that could account for students’ responses in the questionnaire. In this analysis, the
subset scores mentioned earlier were computed. The 12 subset scores were
computed with the mean scores of the subset items. The 12 subsets of items were
used as variables in factor analysis.
With orthogonal varimax rotation and an eigenvalue that is greater than one (as a
cutoff point for factors), “principal factoring extraction” generated four factors that
account for 54.61% of the variance. Factor analysis revealed four factor structures in
the data. Factors were named with the technique that Schommer used in her
studies. She gave descriptive titles to each factor on the basis of high loadings subsets
of items. While naming the factors, she only considered the subsets that have factor
loadings higher than .50. We followed the same procedure in naming our factors. In
our analysis, Factor 1 was named “Innate Ability,” which includes the subset dimen-
sions of “Can not learn how to learn” and “Success is unrelated to hard work.”
Factor 2 was named “Certain Knowledge,” which includes the subset dimension of
“Avoid ambiguity.” Factor 3 was named “Simple Knowledge,” which includes the
subset dimension of “Seek single answers.” Factor 4 was named “Omniscient
Authority,” which includes the subset dimension of “Depend on authority.”
Variances associated with factors and their eigenvalues are presented in Table 2.
In order to determine better factor structures, we also did oblique rotations but we
could not obtain better interpretable findings than orthogonal varimax rotation.
Similar to Schommer’s findings, our factor analysis results clearly indicated that
preservice teachers develop their epistemological beliefs as a set of more or less inde-
pendent beliefs due to having four factors instead of one factor.
Inter-item reliabilities for items that compose each factor range from .20 to .60.
Schommer has found this range in her studies between .51 and .78. From Table 2 it
Table 2. Factor loadings from principal component factor analysis

Factor loading
Subset 1 2 3 4
1. Can not learn how to learn .727 −.110 .040 .011

2. Concentrated effort is waste of time .671 −.001 .004 .237
3. Avoid integration .657 .120 .225 .046
4. Success is unrelated to hard work .620 .202 −.180 −.133
5. Do not criticize authority .613 .033 .099 −.066
6. Learning is quick .568 .144 −.094 −.115
7. Learn the first time .478 −033 −118 .163
8. Avoid ambiguity −.102 .768 .211 .195
9. Ability to learn is innate .294 .759 −.066 −.180
10. Knowledge is certain .295 −.029 .781a −.075
11. Seek single answers −.321 .192 .646 .037
12. Depend on authority .067 .026 −.032 .925
Eigenvalue 3.059 1.413 1.056 1.024
% of variances 25.494 11.774 8.804 8,535
aPattern of loadings that is not consistent with the hypothesized epistemological dimensions.
is clear that dimensions (e.g., Knowledge is certain) could not successfully load into
their hypothesized dimension for some of the subsets. On the contrary, these subset
dimensions loaded highly to other factors. This finding revealed that in the Turkish
context participants might not have successfully differentiated subset items due to
their close meaning. In this study, having difficulty in differentiating the items might
have influenced having lower reliability scores than Schommer’ reliability scores.
Exploring the Relationships among PSTs’ Epistemological Beliefs, Self-efficacy Beliefs, and
Epistemological World Views
Multiple regression analysis is used to explain how accurately each of the four factor
scores (Innate Ability, Certain Knowledge, Simple Knowledge, Omniscient
Authority) generated for PSTs’ epistemological beliefs can be predicted from a
linear combination of self-efficacy (factor score 1), outcome expectancy (factor score
2), and epistemological world view (mean scores). In order to test the assumptions,
we checked the normal distribution with the histogram of the standardized residuals,
sample size, multicollinearity (none of the correlations among independent variables
were found to be higher than .50), and linearity. All of the assumptions were not
violated for each of our regression analysis.
For Innate Ability factor scores, three of the predictor variables—self-efficacy,
outcome expectancy, epistemological world view—contributed significantly to the
model. Altogether these variables explained 29.6% of the variability in the Innate
Ability factor scores of the SEQ (adjusted R2 = 0.296, F(1, 420) = 59.94, p < .01).
The β weights for self-efficacy were −.356 for self-efficacy, −.258 for outcome
expectancy, and −.235 for epistemological world view. The negative β values for
each predictor variable indicate that teachers who had lower Innate Ability factor
scores also had high self-efficacy beliefs (which means that those teachers who
believe that they are good teachers tended to see their students learning ability as not
fixed), high outcome expectancy beliefs (which means that those teachers who
believe that their students would do well in science tended to see their students
learning ability as not fixed), and possessing a more relativist epistemological world
view (which means that those teachers who believe the effectiveness of student-
centered approaches in teaching tended to see their students learning ability as not
fixed). In other words, these teachers accept that their students’ learning ability is
not fixed at birth but instead is an ever-changing characteristic of learners and can be
developed by teachers’ effective teaching practices.
For Certain Knowledge factor scores, only one predictor variable—outcome
expectancy—contributed significantly to the model. This variable explained 1.4% of
the variability in the Certain Knowledge factor scores of the SEQ (adjusted R2 =
0.014, F(1, 420) = 7.07, p < .01). The β weight for outcome expectancy was .129.
Even though the β value indicated that there is a positive relationship between epis-
temological world view and Simple Knowledge factor scores, the interpretation of
this positive relationship is inverse due to the scoring of the items. Interestingly,
teachers who had higher outcome expectancy beliefs scores had higher Certain
Knowledge factor scores (less sophisticated beliefs in Certain Knowledge). This
finding indicated that those teachers who believe that their students would do well in
science tended to feel confident about influencing students’ achievement only when
that scientific knowledge is Certain Knowledge (knowledge is unchanging).
Only one predictor variable—epistemological world view—contributed signifi-
cantly to the prediction of Simple Knowledge factor scores. This variable explained
0.8% of the variability in the Simple Knowledge factor scores of the SEQ (adjusted
R2 = 0.008, F(1, 420) = 4.41, p < .05). The β weight for epistemological world view
was .102. Similar to the finding for the Certain Knowledge factor scores of the SEQ,
there is also an inverse relationship. Thus, this finding indicated that those teachers
who believe the effectiveness of student-centered teaching approaches in student
learning tended to feel that science may be best taught when students memorize the
isolated facts or the body of scientific knowledge (Simple Knowledge).
None of the predictor variables significantly contributed to the explanation of the
Omniscient Authority factor scores. Table 3 summarizes the multiple regression
analysis results.
Discussion
The SEQ showed satisfactory results in defining epistemological beliefs dimensions
in Turkey, similar to the U.S. context. The factors we found in this study clearly
indicate that epistemological beliefs are a set of more or less independent beliefs in
the Turkish culture. It is not an easy task to determine epistemological beliefs both
Table 3. Multiple regression results investigating the associations between the SEQ dimensions,
epistemological world views, and self-efficacy beliefs
SEQ dimension β weight Adjusted R2 F p value
Innate Ability
Self-efficacy −.356 0.296 59.94 0.000
Outcome expectancy −.258
Epistemological world view −.235
Certain Knowledge
Outcome expectancy .129 0.014 7.07 0.008
Simple Knowledge
Epistemological world view .102 0.008 4.41 0.036
qualitatively and quantitatively. As mentioned earlier, Schommer carried out

numerous research studies with different samples and methods. The results of these
studies revealed three to four different factor structures. This varied number of
factors show that it is difficult to expect similar factor structures for different sample
characteristics. In this study, we found four factor structures. The “Omniscient
Authority” factor that Schommer did not find in her studies was found in the
present study. Conversely the “quick learning factor” Schommer found did not
appear in our analysis.
The factor analyses of the Turkish SEQ version shows similar patterns with
Schommer’s (1990) findings. Our results suggest that multidimensional theory is
more appropriate than unidimensional theory in explaining PSTs’ epistemological
beliefs. According to the unidimensional theory, one should expect to see only one
factor at a time to define development of PSTs’ epistemological beliefs. However,
we found four factors similar to Schommer’s findings. Thus, PSTs’ epistemological
beliefs might be considered “as a set of more or less independent beliefs”
(Schommer, 1990, p. 500).
Another observation we made was the number and type of factor structures. In
her studies, Schommer often found four factor structures. Those factors were Quick
Learning, Certain Knowledge, Simple Knowledge, and Innate Ability. In Turkish
sample, we found “Omniscient Authority” as one of four factor structures. This
factor was also found in our earlier validation study of the SEQ (Topcu & Yilmaz-
Tuzun, 2006). This is an interesting finding shedding light on the cultural differ-
ences in educational contexts between the two countries. PSTs in teacher education
programs enter their programs with certain experiences about teaching due to the
experience gained through their previous education (McDiarmid, Ball, & Anderson,
1989; Gunstone, Slattery, Bair, & Northfield, 1993; Hollingsworth, 1989). There-
fore, their previous learning experiences influence their professional development
throughout teacher education programs. In the Turkish educational system, many
teachers might have applied traditional teaching strategies (e.g., expository). Those
traditional teaching approaches might have led students to comprehend that science
is a body of knowledge discovered by scientists, in which the teachers’ role is to
deliver this knowledge to students. That kind of teaching environment might have
distracted our students from critically reflecting upon the scientific knowledge and
the ways scientists make their discoveries in any time of their life as a student. This
approach might be the reason for the Omniscient Authority we found in our factor
structures.
Our reliability analysis showed lower values than Schommer’s findings. Those
differences might have been caused by the translation. The Turkish version might
not have captured the full and literal meaning of the original survey. Turkish
students might have understood the items differently from students in the USA; this
is a limitation for almost all translated scales. In addition, cultural differences
between Turkey and USA might also have led Turkish students to interpret some of
the items differently from those students in the USA, as indicated by Schommer
(1994). Replication of this study with different and larger sample characteristics will
improve the characteristics of the items, and the reliability will be improved based
upon the findings.
Another reason for the low reliability might be the difficulty in differentiating the
items due to close meanings of the subset items. Factor analysis results revealed that
some of the subset items highly loaded to other hypothesized dimensions. This high
loading and correlation with other subset items decreased the reliability indices of
some of the subset items.
According to multiple regression analysis results, the Innate Ability dimension of
the SEQ was found to have a significant (negative) relationship with self-efficacy,
outcome expectancy, and world view. These negative relationships indicated that
the less preservice teachers believe in Innate Ability the more they (a) feel confi-
dent about their science teaching (self-efficacy), (b) feel confident about influenc-
ing their students’ achievement, and (c) are relativist in their epistemological world
view. This finding indicates PSTs believe that they can teach science effectively
when they accept their students’ learning ability is not fixed at birth, but indeed it
is an ever-changing characteristic of learners and can be developed by teachers’
effective teaching practices. This finding is consistent with Schommer’s (1994)
synthesis about the relationship between epistemological beliefs and learning.
According to her, “epistemological beliefs affect the degree to which individuals:
(a) actively engage in learning, (b) persist in difficult tasks, (c) comprehend written
material, and (d) cope with ill-structured domains” (Schommer, 1994, p. 302).
According to studies by Dweck and Bempechat (1983), and Dweck and Legett
(1988) “Persist in difficult task” categorized students as fixed theorists, who
believe that ability to learn is fixed and incremental theorists, who believe that
intelligence of individual can be developed (as cited in Schommer, 2004). Thus,
their orientations for completing an academic task also differ. The fixed theorists
try showing their intelligence while the incremental theorists perform academic
task to develop their intelligence. In our study we found that PSTs, who believe
students’ ability to learn is not fixed and learning is an active process, can facilitate
student learning and help students develop intelligence using effective teaching
methods and practices.
According to multiple regression analysis results, the “certain knowledge

dimension” was found to have a significant (negative) relationship with only

“outcome expectancy.” This relationship indicates that preservice teachers feel
confident about influencing students’ achievement (outcome expectancy) only when
the scientific knowledge they teach is accepted as unchanging scientific findings
(Certain Knowledge). They feel unsure about their students’ understanding of
science knowledge if they teach this knowledge as always being changing. When the
predictors of the Simple Knowledge dimension were examined, only world view had
a significant (positive) relationship with this factor scores. According to these inter-
esting results, PSTs believe the effectiveness of student-centered teaching
approaches (relativist world view). They also accept that science may be best taught
when students memorize the isolated facts or body of scientific knowledge (Simple
Knowledge).
Predictors of the Certain Knowledge and Simple Knowledge dimensions revealed
several exciting results. First, our findings related to Innate Ability, Certain Knowl-
edge, and Simple Knowledge support Schommer’s (1994) argument about how
epistemological beliefs are developed by an individual. She says:
I proposed that epistemological beliefs be reconceived as a system of more or less

independent beliefs. By system, I mean that there is more than one belief to consider.
And by more or less independent, I mean that individuals may be sophisticated in some
beliefs, but not necessarily sophisticated in other beliefs. (Schommer, 1994, p. 300)
In this study, preservice teachers showed very sophisticated beliefs in the Innate
Ability dimension but their beliefs about Certain Knowledge and Simple Knowledge
stayed at a simple level.
Second, when it comes to teaching scientific facts or concepts to students, PSTs
believe that they feel insecure about their students’ success (outcome expectancy) if
they see scientific concepts as ever-changing scientific understandings. In other
words, preservice teachers believe that they will fail teaching science if they accept
scientific knowledge as always continuously developing. Moreover, they feel secured
to use student-centered teaching practices and implementation only when students
successfully memorize the isolated facts or body of scientific knowledge. This finding
also supports the “comprehend written material-integration of information” dimen-
sion of Schommer’s (1994) synthesis about the relationship between epistemological
beliefs and learning. According to Songer and Linn (1991, cited in Schommer,
1994) there are two types of student learning characteristics: (1) static believers, who
learn science effectively if they memorize the words and facts; and (2) dynamic
believers, who learn science by doing it. The latter group’s epistemological develop-
ment is more completed than the other. In our study, PSTs might think their
students as static believers when they think teaching scientific concepts and facts. As
mentioned earlier, PSTs are treated as static believers during their schooling. This
might lead them to think their future students as static believers rather than dynamic
believers. Czerniak and Lumpe’s (1996) findings also indicate similar results. In
their study, they found that inservice teachers’ self-efficacy scores contributed
successfully to teachers’ beliefs about application of constructivist teaching practices

in the classroom. However, when they teach science with constructivist theories,
81% of teachers did not believe in the effectiveness of using constructivist strategies
in their science classrooms to be an effective teacher. Czerniak and Lumpe argued
that teachers are likely to teach science the way they were taught, such as lecturing.
Thus teachers think that science is isolated facts and concepts and can be taught
effectively if students memorize these facts and if the teacher transfers this knowl-
edge to students. Our study added student dimension to Czerniak and Lumpe’s
finding. In this study PSTs believe that they can use student-centered methods only
when they see students as static believers. This finding suggests that letting dynamic
believers learn with student-centered environments might cause chaotic classroom
environments. Handling this classroom would be difficult for PSTs in terms of
following students’ learning. Thus PSTs believe in the effectiveness of student-
centered learning but they are insecure about handling the classroom environment.
As a conclusion they developed a very interesting belief. According to this belief, a
student-centered method would be successful only when their students were static
believers. In other words, a student’s role is to memorize and learn scientific facts
and concepts through student-centered methods. Similarly, Schraw and Olafson
(2002) found that even though teachers indicated that they believed in the effective-
ness of student-centered teaching approaches, they still used district-wide mandated
curriculum and expository teaching practices. This finding suggests that PSTs’
beliefs and their applications in classrooms are two different aspects that require
further investigation.
Conclusion
In this study PSTs’ epistemological beliefs were determined and the relationships
among different dimensions of epistemological beliefs and epistemological world
views and self-efficacy beliefs were explored. Results of this study revealed some
issues of critical importance related to the implementation of effective science
teaching practices for PSTs in teacher education programs in Turkey.
Study results suggested that PSTs’ epistemological beliefs developed as more or
less independent beliefs. In other words, while PSTs develop sophisticated beliefs in
some epistemological dimensions (e.g. Innate Ability) they develop less sophisti-
cated beliefs in other epistemological dimensions (e.g. Certain Knowledge, Simple
Knowledge). From this result we need to pay attention to two important observa-
tions. First, according to factor analysis results, four factor structures indicated that
epistemological beliefs are a set of more or less independent beliefs in Turkish
culture. In other words, PSTs possess different epistemological beliefs in different
degrees. Thus it is imperative to find out those beliefs in teacher education programs
and develop them when it is necessary due to their influence on students’ learning.
Several research studies have already proved that these beliefs strongly influenced
individuals’ interpretation of information (Schommer, 1990), integration of
information (Schommer, 1990), attitude toward school (Schommer & Walker,
1997), and examined someone’s learning (Ryan, 1984). Being aware of someone’s
epistemological development is very important for that person to work on develop-

ment of his/her epistemological beliefs. If this person is a teacher then the issue
becomes more critical due to this teacher’s influence on students. According to
Schommer-Aikins (2004), if teachers know their students’ epistemological beliefs,
they will be able to apply appropriate instructional strategies to help lower achieving
students into higher level thinking and help higher achiever students to make appro-
priate development during their courses. In order to accomplish this, teachers first
need to achieve this development on their own learning. Then it will be easier for
them to apply similar strategies for their students. Teacher education programs play
an important role in attaining this goal.
Second, teachers play a central role to improve the effectiveness of science instruc-
tion. Their epistemological beliefs will certainly affect the way they teach. In our
study, when it comes to teaching scientific knowledge to students, PSTs see them-
selves successful only if their students memorize the scientific concepts and facts.
According to them, there are certain facts and concepts for students to memorize. If
students do not memorize these facts and concepts they feel insecure about their
students’ learning and application of student-centered teaching practices. This
conflict needs to be solved during their teacher education programs. This needs to
be attained both within method classes and in actual classroom settings during field
experiences. PSTs need to be given opportunities to practice student-centered
methods and see the effectiveness of these methods on students’ learning to develop
their epistemological beliefs. Czerniak and Lumpe (1996) also raised a similar issue
in their study. They indicated that, in order to make teachers believe in the effective-
ness of constructivist theories on students’ learning, “Teachers need to see construc-
tivist practices modeled. And they need time to practice the teaching strategies, and
reflect upon their efforts, engage in dialogue with others” (Czerniak & Lumpe, 1996,
p. 259).
Implications
In this section we offer our suggestions for PSTs’ education. Teacher education
programs aim to prepare better teachers who can improve their schools according to
the changing characteristics of the world. It is believed that teachers need to under-
stand their beliefs and the relationships of these beliefs with their classroom practices
(Schraw & Olafson, 2002). Some of these beliefs are epistemological beliefs, episte-
mological world views, and self-efficacy beliefs. Our research suggests that PSTs
hold less sophisticated epistemological beliefs. Further, it is found that those beliefs
are influenced by epistemological world views and self-efficacy beliefs. It is necessary
for teacher educators to help students be aware of their beliefs and change them if
necessary. Epistemological beliefs are one of these. Since teachers’ beliefs and ideas
have been shaped for a very long time, it is usually difficult for preservice teachers to
change them during teacher education programs (Aguirre & Haggerty, 1995;
Mellado, 1998). A systematic approach is needed to help PSTs change their less
sophisticated epistemological beliefs. Throughout the teacher education programs,

several courses such as nature of science, philosophy and history of science, and
science education methods courses may help those teachers develop their epistemo-
logical beliefs. PSTs may easily develop their content knowledge while taking extra
science courses. However, knowledge about how scientific knowledge are discovered
and improved, epistemology, scientific method, scientific principles, and their mean-
ings can be gained through courses such as nature of science and philosophy and
history of science. PSTs need to be encouraged and supported to take these courses
during their education. At this point, it is clear that teacher education programs
must concentrate on the determination and development of PSTs’ epistemological
beliefs (Brownlee, Purdie, & Boulton-Lewis, 2001).
Above, we stated that science education methods courses may also be important
in shaping PSTs’ epistemological beliefs. These courses can provide a context for
PSTs to see how their epistemological beliefs are connected with their epistemologi-
cal world views and their self-efficacy. During science education methods courses,
PSTs may identify their epistemological beliefs and see how those beliefs influence
their epistemological world views. For example, in our study we found that PSTs
had less sophisticated beliefs about Simple Knowledge and Certain Knowledge but
at the same time they developed a relativist world view. In the light of these two
contradictory beliefs, PSTs developed a very interesting teaching approach in which
they preferred to implement student-centered methods if their students see science
as unchanging and memorize scientific facts. This finding revealed that PSTs
develop understanding about the theory (different teaching methods and their
underlying theories) but they cannot figure out how this understanding can be
implemented practically due to the less sophisticated epistemological beliefs they
hold. Thus, during science education methods courses these PSTs should see how
student-centered methods may not be implemented when students see science as
unchanging and memorized scientific facts. They need to link between theory and
practice with continuous discussion of the theoretical understanding, their imple-
mentation, and the effects of their epistemological beliefs on those practices during
their microteaching and field experiences (Schraw & Olafson, 2002).
Field experiences may help PSTs see how theoretical understanding about teach-
ing and learning takes place in the classroom settings. According to Anderson and
Mitchener (1994, p. 18), “field experience in schools is an opportunity for students
to try out who they are as professional educators and what it is they are learning in
their classes.” However, it is known that the theories that PSTs learned during the
teacher education programs are rarely being practiced in classrooms (Cochran-
Smith, 1991). At this point school and university cooperation need to be fostered and
encouraged to provide PSTs to have an opportunity to change their epistemological
beliefs.
Many studies have been conducted to understand the development of students’
epistemological beliefs (Schommer, 1994; Schommer et al., 1997). Few research
studies have investigated the development of teachers’ epistemological beliefs and
epistemological world views (Schraw & Olafson, 2002; White, 2000). This research
revealed that researchers need to focus in future research on how epistemological

beliefs and epistemological world views of PSTs can be improved.
References
Aguirre, M., & Haggerty, S. (1995). Preservice teachers’ meaning of learning. International Journal
of Science Education, 17, 119–131.
Anderson, R. D., & Mitchener, C. P. (1994). Research on science teacher education. In D. Gabel
(Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 3–44). New York: Macmillan.
Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers’ sense of efficacy and student
achievement. New York: Longman.
Berman, P., Mclaughlin, M., Bass, G., Pauly, E., & Zellman, G. (1977). Federal programs
supporting educational change: Vol. VII. Factors affecting implementation and continuation (Rep.
No. R-1589/7-HEW). Santa Monica, CA: RAND. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. 140432)
Brownlee, J., Purdie, N., & Boulton-Lewis, G. (2001). Changing epistemological beliefs in pre-
service teaching and education students. Teacher in Higher Education, 6, 247–268.
Cannon, J. R., & Scharmann, L. C. (1996). Influence of a cooperative early field experience on
preservice elementary teachers’ science self-efficacy. Science Education, 80(4), 419–436.
Cochran-Smith, M. (1991). Learning to teach against the grain. Harvard Educational Review,
61(3), 279–310.
Czerniak, C. M., & Lumpe, A. T. (1996). Relationship between teacher beliefs and science
education reform. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 7(4), 247–266.
Dembo, M. H., & Gibson, S. (1985). Teachers’ sense of efficacy: An important factor in school
improvement. The Elementary School Journal, 86(1), 173–184.
Desouza, J. M. S., Boone, W. J., & Yilmaz, O. (2004). A study of science teaching self-efficacy and
outcome expectancy beliefs of teachers in India. Science Education, 88(6), 837–854.
Dweck, C. S., & Bempechat, J. (1983). Children’s theories of intelligence: Consequences for
learning. In S. G. Paris, G. M. Olson, & H. W. Stevenson (Eds.), Learning and motivation in
the classroom (pp. 239–256). Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dweck, C. S., & Legett, E. L. (1988). A social–cognitive approach to motivation and personality.
Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.
Enochs, L. G., & Riggs, I. M. (1990). Further development of an elementary science teaching effi-
cacy belief instrument: A preservice elementary instrument. School Science and Mathematics,
90(8), 694–705.
Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 76, 569–582.
Ginns, I. S., & Watters, J. J. (1996). Science teaching self-efficacy of novice elementary school teachers.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of NARST, St Louis, MO.
Gunstone, R. F., Slattery, M., Bair, J. R., & Northfield, J. R. (1993). A case study exploration of
development in preservice science teachers. Science Education, 77, 47–73.
Hofer, B. (2002). Personal epistemology: Conflicts and consensus in an emerging area of inquiry.
Interactive symposium, Division D, American Educational Research Association. New
Orleans, LA.
Hollingsworth, S. (1989). Prior beliefs and cognitive change in learning to teach. American
Educational Research Journal, 26(2), 160–189.
King, P. M. (1986). Formal reasoning in adults: A review and critique. In N. R. Mines & K.
Kitchener (Eds.), Adult cognitive development. New York: Praeger.
King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and
promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (2004). Reflective judgement: Theory and research on develop-
ment of epistemic assumptions through adulthood. Educational Psychologist, 39, 5–18.

Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in human development. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Lumpe, A. T., Haney, J. J., & Czerniak, C. M. (2000). Assessing teachers’ beliefs about their
science teaching context. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(3), 275–292.
McDiarmid, G. W., Ball, D. L., & Anderson, C. W. (1989). Why staying one chapter ahead
doesn’t really work: Subject-specific pedagogy. In M.C. Reynolds (Ed.), Knowledge base for the
beginning teacher (pp. 193–205). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
Mellado, V. (1998). The classroom practice of preservice teachers and their conceptions of
teaching and learning science. Science Teacher Education, 82, 197–214.
Perry, W. B. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Perry, W. G., Jr. (1968). Patterns of development in thought and values of students in a liberal arts
college: A validation of a scheme. Cambridge, MA: Bureau of Study Counsel, Harvard
University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 024315)
Ramey-Gassert, L., Shroyer, M. G., & Staver, J. R. (1996). A qualitative study of factors
influencing science teaching self-efficacy of elementary level teachers. Science Education,
80(3), 283–315.
Ryan, M. P. (1984). Monitoring text comprehension: Individual differences in epistemological
standards. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 248–258.
Riggs, I. M., & Enochs, L. G. (1990). Toward the development of an elementary science teacher’s
science teaching efficacy belief instrument. Science Education, 74(6), 625–637.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforce-
ment. Psychological Monographs, 80, 1–28.
Scharmann, L. S., & Hampton, C. O. (1995). Cooperative learning and preservice elementary
teacher science self-efficacy. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 6, 125–133.
Schommer, M. (1988). Dimensions of tacit epistemology and comprehension. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Schommer, M. (1990). The effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 498–504.
Schommer, M. (1993). Epistemological development and academic performance among second-
ary students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 406–411.
Schommer, M. (1994). Synthesizing epistemological belief research: Tentative understandings
and provocative confusions. Educational Psychology Review, 6(4), 293–319.
Schommer, M., Calvert, C., Gariglietti, G., & Bajaj, A. (1997). The development of epistemologi-
cal beliefs among secondary students: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology,
89, 37–40.
Schommer, M., Crouse, A., & Rhodes, N. (1992). Epistemological beliefs and mathematical text
comprehension: Believing it is simple does not make it so. Journal of Educational Psychology,
84, 435–443.
Schommer, M., & Walker, K. (1997). Epistemological beliefs and valuing school: considerations
for college admissions and retention. Research in Higher Education, 38, 173–186.
Schommer-Aikins, M. (2004). Explaining the epistemological belief system: Introducing the
embedded systemic model and coordinated research approach. Educational Psychologist, 39(1),
19–29.
Schraw, G., Dunkle, M. E., & Bendixen, L. D. (1995). Cognitive processes in well-defined and ill-
defined problem-solving. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 523–538.
Schraw, G., & Olafson, L. (2002). Teachers’ epistemological world views and educational
practices. Issues in Education, 8(2), 99–149.
Settlage, J. (2000). Understanding the learning cycle: Influences on abilities to embrace the
approach by preservice elementary school teachers. Science Education, 80(1), 43–50.
Songer, N. B., & Linn, M. C. (1991). How do students’ views of science influence knowledge
integration. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 761–784.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidel, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, USA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Tekkaya, C., Cakiroğ lu, J., & Özkan, Ö. (2004). Turkish pre-service science teachers’ understand-
gb
ev[]r
ing of science and their confidence in teaching it. Journal of Education for Teaching, 30(1), 57–66.
Topcu, M. S., & Yilmaz-Tuzun, O. (2006, May 25–28). The effects of self-efficacy and epistemological
world views on preservice science teachers’ epistemological beliefs. Paper presented at the 8th
International Conference on Education, Atina, Greece.
Tsai, C. C. (2002). Nested epistemologies: science teachers’ belief of teaching, learning, science.
International Journal of Science Education, 24(8), 771–783.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and
measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202–248.
White, B. C. (2000). Pre-service teachers’ epistemology viewed through perspectives on
problematic classroom situations. Journal of Education for Teaching, 26, 279–305.
Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers’ sense of efficacy and beliefs about
control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 81–91.
Woolfolk, A. E., Rosoff, B., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and their beliefs
about managing students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6(2), 137–148.

Yilmaz (IJSE-2007)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Yilmaz (IJSE-2007)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by:[University of Barcelona]

On: 18 February 2008

International Journal of Science

First Published on: 23 May 2007

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Relationships among Preservice

*Corresponding author. Department of Elementary Education, Middle East Technical University,

ISSN 0950-0693 (print)/ISSN 1464-5289 (online)/08/010065–21

Epistemological World Views

characteristics of knowledge such as certainty, simplicity, or origin. Epistemological

Study Purpose and Rationale

The rationale of this study is two-fold. Firstly it is related to characteristics of

Table 1. Hypothetical dimensions and associated subsets of the epistemological questionnaire

Subset dimension Hypothetical dimension

Simple Knowledge Seek single answers

Data Collection and Analysis

later analysis, these factor scores were used.

Table 2. Factor loadings from principal component factor analysis

1. Can not learn how to learn .727 −.110 .040 .011

epistemological world views, and self-efficacy beliefs

SEQ dimension β weight Adjusted R2 F p value

qualitatively and quantitatively. As mentioned earlier, Schommer carried out

According to multiple regression analysis results, the “certain knowledge

dimension” was found to have a significant (negative) relationship with only

I proposed that epistemological beliefs be reconceived as a system of more or less

successfully to teachers’ beliefs about application of constructivist teaching practices

epistemological development is very important for that person to work on develop-

sophisticated epistemological beliefs. Throughout the teacher education programs,

revealed that researchers need to focus in future research on how epistemological

beliefs and epistemological world views of PSTs can be improved.

ment of epistemic assumptions through adulthood. Educational Psychologist, 39, 5–18.

integration. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 761–784.

You might also like