Developing a Questionnaire for Measuring Epistemological Beliefs in History Education

• In Event: Roundtable Session 26
  In Roundtable Session: In Search of the Philosophers' Stone: Modeling and Assessing Epistemological Beliefs in History Education

Abstract

Introduction
Epistemological beliefs are expected to profoundly influence students’ task motivation, and performance in historical thinking. Maggioni, VanSledright, and Alexander (2009) defined a three-stances model in which students move from a copier stance (historical knowledge is a ‘copy’ of the past), to a relativist stance (historical knowledge is merely a matter of opinion), to a criterialist stance (historical knowledge is interpretative, but also restrained by disciplinary criteria). However, the validity of this three-step progression model proves to be problematic. For example, research has shown that even prospective and practicing history teachers can ‘wobble’ epistemologically depending on the context (cf. VanSledright & Reddy, 2014). This suggests conceptual as well as methodological challenge: first, empirical explorations point to a two-stance instead of a three-stance model. This study aims to design a valid questionnaire to measure epistemological beliefs of students in secondary education with this two-stance model.
Method
Research questions
- To what extent a two-stance model can be confirmed?
- What are the differences between epistemological stances of secondary history students at the end of their history education?
Participants
Participants are 10th and 11th grade secondary school students. These students are at in their final year of their formal history education in the Netherland and consist of a group of higher general continued education students (N=543, aged 17) and a group of pre-university students (N=364, aged 18). The on-line questionnaire was completed by a total of 909 students (393 male, 525 female) in the spring of 2015 and was part of a larger instrument measuring school level, students’ interest, and teachers’ approaches.
Instrument development
The design of the 25 items in the questionnaire was partly based on the translation of the Beliefs about History Questionnaire (Maggioni, et al. 2009). The questionnaire was piloted with expert historians filling out the questionnaire while thinking aloud (N=2). Results suggested that a three-step progression model is problematic, supporting our aim for a 2-factor theoretical solution. Items loading on the first factor represent ‘naive’ epistemological beliefs, comprising both copier and (naive) relativist beliefs (e.g., “history is just a matter of opinion”). The second factor comprises ‘nuanced’ beliefs focusing on the criteria for generating historical knowledge and (sophisticated) subjectivist ideas (e.g., “interpretation is an important aspect of doing history”’). This resulted in a questionnaire with 24 items, using a 6-point Likert-scale.
Results
Explorative factor-analyses support a two-factor solution for the questionnaire; naive beliefs (α=.69; 12 items) and nuanced beliefs (α=.81; 11 items). Results suggest that students at different levels differ significantly in terms of beliefs. A multiple regression model appears to provide evidence that students’ epistemological beliefs are significantly predicted by (1) school level (or age), (2) students’ interest, (3) teachers’ approaches and (4) history grade.

Maggioni, L., VanSledright, B., & Alexander, P. A. (2009). Walking on the borders: A measure of epistemic cognition in history. The Journal of Experimental Education, 77(3), 187–214.

VanSledright, B., & Reddy, K. (2014). Changing epistemic beliefs? An exploratory study of cognition among prospective history teacher. Revista Tempo E Argumento, 06(11), 28–68.

Authors

• Gerhard Stoel, University of Amsterdam

• Björn Wansink, Utrecht University

• Albert Logtenberg, Leiden University

• Timothy David Huijgen, University of Groningen