Overlap and Divergence in Mapping Different Levels of Epistemic Competence

• In Event: Conceptual and Methodological Issues and Advances in Research on Epistemic Beliefs

Abstract

Objectives and Theoretical Framework

Epistemic competence in our view entails the adaptive and consistent manifestation of "an orientation toward knowing as a complex, effortful, generative, evidence-seeking, and reflective enterprise" (Alexander et al., in press, p. 53). Adaptiveness implies that the learner has become appropriately tuned to the domain, context, and task at hand (e.g., Alexander, Schallert, & Reynolds, 2009; Kuhn, Cheney, & Weinstock, 2000), while consistency suggests that this tuning is relatively stable. These two requirements collectively present interesting issues with regard to the assessment of epistemic competence and the level of generality at which it operates.

Our view of epistemic competence acknowledges the distinct, interactive contributions of characteristics of learner, context, task, and domain (e.g., Mason, Gava, & Boldrin, 2008; Muis & Gierus, 2011). If learners manifest epistemic competence for a given type of task as enacted within a particular context, what might we see from them in the way of larger-scale orientations toward knowing? To address this question, we pursued two approaches for assessing epistemic beliefs at different levels of specificity, asking what the data from each approach contribute to gauging individuals’ epistemic competence.

Methods

We compared two subsamples of U.S. undergraduates participating in an international study: high-end outliers on two computer-based tasks getting at epistemic beliefs. In task 1, participants generated a graphic representation of their view of the relation among knowledge, information, and truth, defined each term, and justified their representation. They also explained whether their espoused view was context-independent. Those who depicted an integral relation between knowledge and truth and expressed the need to test the veracity of information were our outliers for this task. In task 2, participants responded twice to questionnaire items assessing their beliefs about text-based inquiry, first as contextualized to school-related purposes and then for personal purposes. Outliers for this task were those with a mean score more than two standard deviations beyond the sample mean.

Results and Significance

While analysis comparing outliers for tasks 1 and 2 is currently underway, we expect based on preliminary findings that consistent competence across both measures will be extremely rare, and that consideration of overlap and divergence of information from both tasks will be critical for a valid understanding of the scope of an individual’s epistemic competence. This comparison raises questions including: when are the measures tapping into epistemological beliefs (i.e., a generalized articulation of an overarching system of beliefs), and when are they tapping into contextualized epistemic beliefs and competence? Which type of competence may be more useful to evaluate in learning situations or for broader educational purposes?

Addressing epistemic competence requires taking into account the role of context, the importance of flexibility, and the developmental trajectory involved in getting to competence as manifested both within a specific task-related context and as a generalized, well-integrated system of beliefs. We must consider the task demands and the degree of scaffolding the format and content of each measure provide: these operate as both supports and constraints, with consequences for the validity of our measures.

Authors

• Emily W. Fox, University of Maryland

• Liliana Maggioni, The Catholic University of America

• Patricia A. Alexander, University of Maryland