Brief summary of epistemological beliefs
There is extensive research (e.g. Perry, 1970; Belenky et al 1986; Schommer, e.g. 1990,
1994; Baxter Magolda, 1992, 1996) which considers the ideas held by individuals on knowledge and knowledge construct. It is widely acknowledged that the work of William Perry
(1970
) who examined Harvard undergraduates’ epistemological beliefs was one of the original investigations into the beliefs about the nature of knowledge. From this work he concluded that students began college with beliefs in simple and certain knowledge handed down by authority which by the end of college changed to the belief that knowledge is tentative and complex that is derived from reason and observation (Schommer 2002).
Although his work was criticised for limited student sample and gender bias it nevertheless generated much research activity into epistemological beliefs of students.
Perry’s theory described an individual’s progress in the development of these beliefs, their progress through epistemological positions and the role of authority in defining and conveying knowledge. These positions he described as dualism, multiplism, relativism, and commitment through which an individual may move, but may become fixed at any point.
 Dualism describes as a set of beliefs that knowledge claims are either true or false,
 and that this knowledge is given by authority.
Multiplism , where most knowledge is still viewed as absolute, also recognises that
 opinion is legitimate and not all knowledge is certain.
Relativism describes a major shift in epistemological thinking (Brownlee 2001).

Individuals consider that knowledge is actively and personally constructed where diversity of opinion is legitimate. There is a need to employ evidence and reasoning to validate these opinions. Truth is considered to be relative to individuals' personal interpretations of experiences (Brownlee 2004).
Commitment , the final position, refers to an epistemology where some beliefs are more valued than others and flexibility is a component.
Since Perry there have been other similar unidimensional epistemological models presented.
Some examples are shown in Fig 1.
Figure 1(Please note the tabulated presentation does not indicate that there is equivalence between the levels)
Perry 1970
Dualism
Mulitplism
Relativism
Commitment
Belenky 1986
Silence
Received
Subjective
Procedural
Constructed
Baxter Magolda 1993
Absolute
Transitional
Independent
Contextual
The unidimensional view of epistemological beliefs was challenged by Schommer (1990,
1998) who suggested that personal epistemology, rather than being unidimensional and progressing through a fixed progression of stages or related to maturity, is a belief system and is composed of several relatively independent dimensions. Schommer (1990, p.498) contends that ‘beliefs about the nature of knowledge are far too complex to be captured in a single dimension’. She proposed the multidimensional view of epistemological beliefs as a system of more or less independent beliefs “By system, it is meant that there is more than one belief to consider, and by more or less independent, it is meant that a learner could be
726845242
11/04/2020

sophisticated in some beliefs but not necessarily sophisticated in other beliefs” (Schommer,
1993, p.407). Individuals may hold both relativistic and dualistic views about the nature of knowledge depending on the context and these beliefs may not necessarily develop in synchrony. She proposed that there are at least five dimensions where each dimension can be viewed from a naïve perspective to a more sophisticated stance:
1. Fixed, innate ability to learn (the ability to learn is innate rather than acquired)
2. Simple knowledge (knowledge is simple rather than complex)
3. Quick learning (learning is quick or not at all)
4. Certain knowledge (knowledge is certain rather than tentative)
5. Omniscient authority (knowledge is handed down by authority rather than derived from reason)
E ach of the dimensions rest on a continuum from naïve to sophisticated ways of thinking.
Sophisticated beliefs co nsider truth as ‘relative, changing, and actively constructed by the individual’ (Kardash and Scholes in Brownlee 2003, p.88). The naïve position can be compared to Perry’s dualism and Baxter Magolda’s absolute; the sophisticated position to
Perry’s relativism and commitment and Baxter Magolda’s independent and contextual epistemologies.
Implications for teaching and learning
Individual epistemological perspectives have been shown to relate to learning in various ways and therefore have implications for teaching (Hoffer, 2001). Knowing students epistemological beliefs ‘can provide an alternative lens for teachers to use in understanding their students ideas and behaviour, in assessing students abilities and need, adapting their plans and strategies for ins truction.’ (Hammer and Elby, 2002 in Hofer and Pitrich)
Lucas and Tann (2006) also confirm research that shows that the variety of beliefs about knowledge affects the way in which students learn and make judgments. They suggest ‘A student’s way of knowing will act as a lens through which she or he views the world. Thus it will affect how a student sees key aspects of their learning environment and the way in which learning is approached’ (Lucas and Tann, 2006, p.8).
Brownlee (2004) directs us to the growing body of research that suggests as teacher educators we need to be aware of our beginning teacher beliefs as a ‘way to facilitate effective learning in tertiary education’. Furthermore she suggests ‘Teaching, as well as learning, may also be influence d by epistemological beliefs.’ Brownlee (2004, 2003) and
Entwistle et al (2000 in Brownlee 2004) describe links between epistemological beliefs and beliefs about teaching and learning: individuals with relativistic epistemological beliefs are more likely to think of teaching as a process of facilitation; whereas those with dualistic beliefs may base their teaching on the transmission of knowledge and from a more reproductive perspective. Similarly she describes those with a sophisticated way of knowing as regarding teaching from a ‘constructivist or transformative perspective’ (Brownlee 2004). From a naïve perspective teachers will pay little attention to ‘how learners make personal meaning and make connections with their prior knowledge’ (Brownlee 2004); this reproductive approach having a negative effect on the learning experience.
We can surmise students’ beliefs of knowledge are critical components of understanding about student learning (Hoffer, 2001) and will have implications for teaching at all stages. Yet
Hargreaves et al (2005) Report of the Learning Working Group ‘About Learning’ describes how teachers consider they were given ‘little of practical value about the nature of learning’ and how it might be best supported through teaching in their initial training (Hargreaves et al p.4).
726845242
11/04/2020