"Do They Affect It All?" The Relationship Between Students' Epistemological Beliefs and Their Argumentation Skills in History

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

Abstract

Theoretical Background
Research in history education suggests that students’ epistemological beliefs are influencing the ways of their historical thinking (e.g. Lee & Shemilt, 2003). Especially the studies by Maggioni (e.g. 2010) have become important for research on epistemological beliefs in the domain of history. Maggioni differentiates between three stances of domain-specific beliefs of individuals, ranging from a view of history as a ‘copy’ of the past (“copier stance”), via history as just a matter of historians’ interpretation (“borrower stance”) to a more developed view of history as a critical method of inquiry about the past (“criterialist stance”). However, further empirical evidence is needed to support the connection between students’ beliefs about history and their impact on learning outcomes. This study is part of a larger study that investigates to what extent epistemological beliefs effect students’ historical argumentation skills. It reports on the design of a valid and reliable questionnaire for measuring epistemological beliefs about history.

Method
One hundred and fifty students (11th-graders from German high schools) served as participants (74 females; age: M = 16.80 years; SD = .603). We used a translated version of Maggioni’s Beliefs about History Questionnaire (BHQ) and adapted it with regard to the three epistemological stances with five items each. The final questionnaire consisted of 15 items, using a 6-point Likert-scale. We implemented the questionnaire as a pre-/post-test within a quasi-experimental study that explores the possibility to improve students’ epistemological beliefs from copier to criterialist by fostering their argumentation skills in history.

Results
A principal component analysis (varimax rotation) with a forced three-factor extraction resulted in an explanation of 39 % of the total variance. The criterialist items loaded all on factor 1 (factor loadings between .36 and .64). However, the borrower and copier items loaded rather inconsistent on both factors 2 and 3. Cronbach’s alphas for all scales were unsatisfactory (copier: .23; borrower: .33; criterialist: .51). These results challenge the scientific quality of the adapted BHQ version and highlight a critical need for a valid and reliable questionnaire that assesses epistemological beliefs in history. In addition, the results suggest that the independency of the borrower and the copier scale has to be questioned. This conclusion is supported by VanSledright and Reddy (2014) who “characterize different epistemic beliefs along a continuum” (p. 42). However, a continuum may not be assessed by two independent scales but rather by one single scale. Currently, we are working on a more valid and reliable version of the questionnaire. Our rationales for the changes, preliminary results, and suggestions for further research will be included in our presentation.

References

Maggioni, L. (2010). Studying epistemic cognition in the history classroom. Cases of teaching and learning to think historically (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertation and Theses Database (Document-ID: 2180012291).

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

• Marcel Mierwald

• Thomas Lehmann, University of Bremen

• Nicola Brauch, The University of Bochum (Germany)