Abstract
The aim of this chapter is to discuss epistemological beliefs and epistemological judgments in relation to cognitive flexibility. Data from cognitive science and cognitive psychology are discussed to show that the human information processing system can be defined as a highly flexible system. From this perspective, cognitive flexibility can be seen to some degree as normality and not as an exceptional case (Statement 1: Cognitive flexibility is normality not an exceptional case). Against this background, the idea of a generative nature of epistemological judgments is presented. This perspective provides possible (re-)interpretations of conceptual and methodological problems of research on epistemological beliefs (Statement 2: Stability is normality in educational psychology and cognitive flexibility is the exceptional case). To examine the value of this idea, a research philosophy is necessary that focuses on interactions instead of separate cognitive elements to understand the flexibility of the cognitive system. Possible research designs are discussed how to use such an approach to get new insights into the claimed generative nature of epistemological judgments and the relationship between epistemological beliefs and cognitive flexibility (Statement 3: Focusing on detailed interactions between complementary cognitive elements as the smallest unit to understand the flexibility of epistemological judgments is necessary).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
“Context” is a complex notion. In this chapter, context is defined by the specific scientific content that a learner has to elaborate within a specific learning scenario like a school lesson, a seminar, or an informal learning setting. Thus, context is always seen in relation to a specific scientific content that has to be dealt with within a learning scenario.
- 2.
The examples are not related to scientific knowledge, but they are appropriate to illustrate the critique.
- 3.
When the instrument was developed, no differentiation between epistemological beliefs and epistemological judgments was made.
- 4.
From this view, the distinction between cognition and metacognition is challenging. Further elaborations of the view might result in a denial of these constructs.
References
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., et al. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
Barsalou, L. W. (1987). The instability of graded structure: Implications for the nature of concepts. In U. Neisser (Ed.), Concepts and conceptual development: Ecological and intellectual factors in categorization (pp. 101–140). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bromme, R. (2005). Thinking and knowing about knowledge: A plea for and critical remarks on psychological research programs on epistemological beliefs. In M. Hoffmann, J. Lenhard, & F. Seeger (Eds.), Activity and sign: Grounding mathematics education (pp. 191–201). New York: Springer.
Bromme, R., & Kienhues, D. (2008). Allgemeinbildung [general education]. In W. Schneider & M. Hasselhorn (Eds.), Handbuch der Pädagogischen Psychologie (pp. 619–628). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
Bromme, R., Kienhues, D., & Stahl, E. (2008). Knowledge and epistemological beliefs: An intimate but complicate relationship. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing, knowledge and beliefs: Epistemological studies across diverse cultures (pp. 423–441). New York: Springer.
Bromme, R., Pieschl, S., & Stahl, E. (2010). Epistemological beliefs are standards for adaptive learning: A functional theory about epistemological beliefs and metacognition. Metacognition and Learning, 5, 7–26.
Buehl, M. M., & Alexander, P. A. (2001). Beliefs about academic knowledge. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 385–418.
Buehl, M. M., & Alexander, P. A. (2006). Examining the dual nature of epistemological beliefs. International Journal of Educational Research, 45, 28–42.
Buehl, M. M., Alexander, P. A., & Murphy, P. K. (2002). Beliefs about schooled knowledge: Domain specific or domain general? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 415–449.
Carpenter, G. A., & Grossberg, S. (2002). Adaptive resonance theory. In The handbook of brain theory and neural networks (2nd ed., pp. 87–90). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chan, K., & Elliot, R. G. (2002). Exploratory study of Hong Kong teacher education students’ epistemological beliefs: Cultural perspectives and implications on beliefs research. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 292–414.
Chandler, M. J., Hallett, D., & Sokol, B. W. (2002). Competing claims about competing knowledge claims. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 145–168). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Clarebout, G., Elen, J., Luyten, L., & Bamps, H. (2001). Assessing epistemological beliefs: Schommer’s questionnaire revisited. Educational Research and Evaluation, 7, 53–77.
Duffy, T. M., & Knuth, R. A. (1990). Hypermedia and instruction: Where is the match? In D. H. Jonassen & H. Mandl (Eds.), Designing hypermedia for learning (pp. 199–225). New York: Springer.
Elby, A., Frederiksen, J., Schwarz, C., & White, B. (2003). Epistemological beliefs assessment for physical science (EBAPS). Retrieved from http//www2.physics.umd.edu/~elby/EBAPS/home.htm.
Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2001). On the substance of sophisticated epistemology. Science Education, 85, 554–567.
Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2010). Epistemological resources and framing: A cognitive framework for helping teachers interpret and respond to their students’ epistemologies. In L. D. Bendixen & F. C. Feucht (Eds.), Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, and implications for practice (pp. 409–434). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Feltovich, P. J., Spiro, R. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1989). The nature understanding in biomedicine: The deep structure of complex development of misconceptions. In D. Evans & V. Patel (Eds.), Sciences in medicine (pp. 113–172). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Grossberg, S. (1987a). Cortical dynamics of three-dimensional form, color, and brightness perception: I. Monocular theory. Perception & Psychophysics, 41, 87–116.
Grossberg, S. (1987b). Cortical dynamics of three-dimensional form, color, and brightness perception: II. Binocular theory. Perception & Psychophysics, 41, 117–158.
Hammer, D. (1994). Epistemological beliefs in introductory physics. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 151–183.
Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2002). On the form of a personal epistemology. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 169–190). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2003). Tapping students’ epistemological resources. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 53–91.
Hofer, B. K. (2000). Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in personal epistemology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 378–405.
Hofer, B. K. (2006). Domain specificity of personal epistemology: Resolved questions, persistent issues, new models. International Journal of Educational Research, 45, 85–95.
Hofer, B. (2009, August). Online learning and epistemic understanding in adolescence: Preliminary findings. Paper presented at the 13th Biennial Conference, EARLI 2009, Amsterdam.
Jacobson, M. J., & Spiro, R. J. (1995). Hypertext learning environments, cognitive flexibility, and the transfer of complex knowledge: An empirical investigation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12, 301–333.
Jehng, J.-C. J., Johnson, S. D., & Anderson, R. C. (1993). Schooling and students’ epistemological beliefs about learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 23–35.
Kienhues, D., Bromme, R., & Stahl, E. (2008). Changing epistemological beliefs: The unexpected impact of a short-term intervention. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 545–565.
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.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kitchener, K. S. (1986). The reflective judgment model: Characteristics, evidence, and measurement. In R. A. Mines & K. S. Kitchener (Eds.), Adult cognitive development (pp. 76–91). New York: Praeger.
Kuhn, D., Cheney, R., & Weinstock, M. (2000). The development of epistemological understanding. Cognitive Development, 15, 309–328.
Kuhn, D., & Weinstock, M. (2002). What is epistemological thinking and why does it matter? In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 121–144). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Limon, M. (2006). The domain generality-specificity of epistemological beliefs: A theoretical, a methodological problem or both? International Journal of Educational Research, 45, 7–27.
Louca, L., Elby, A., Hammer, D., & Kagey, T. (2004). Epistemological resources: Applying a new epistemological framework to science instruction. Educational Psychologist, 39, 57–68.
Mason, L., & Boldrin, A. (2008). Epistemic metacognition in the context of information searching on the web. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing, knowledge and belief: Epistemological studies across diverse cultures (pp. 377–404). New York: Springer.
Mason, L., & Boscolo, P. (2004). Role of epistemological understanding and interest in interpreting a controversy an in topic-specific belief change. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 103–128.
Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Future challenges and directions for theory and research on personal epistemology. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 389–414). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rosenberg, S. A., Hammer, D., & Phelan, J. (2006). Multiple epistemological coherences in an eighth-grade discussion of the rock cycle. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 261–292.
Rumelhart, D. E., Smolensky, P., McClelland, J. L., & Hinton, G. E. (1986). Schemata and sequential thought processes in PDP models. In J. L. McClelland, D. E. Rumelhart, & The PDP Research Group (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Vol. 2. Psychological and biological models. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Schank, R. C. (1972). Dynamic memory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Schank, R. C. (1982). Dynamic memory: A theory of reminding and learning in computers and people. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Scherr, R. E., & Hammer, D. (2009). Student behavior and epistemological framing: Examples from collaborative active-learning activities in physics. Cognition and Instruction, 27, 147–174.
Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 498–504.
Schommer, M., Calvert, C., Giana, G., & Bajaj, A. (1997). The development of epistemological beliefs among secondary students: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 37–40.
Schraw, G., Bendixen, L. D., & Dunkle, M. E. (2002). Development and validation of the epistemic belief inventory (EBI). In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 261–275). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1991). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. Educational Technology, 31, 24–33.
Spiro, R. J., & Jehng, J. C. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for the nonlinear and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology (pp. 163–205). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Stahl, E. (2009, November). The generative nature of epistemological judgements. Keynote speech at the Personal Epistemology and Learning (PEL) Conference, Taipei, Taiwan.
Tabak, I., & Weinstock, M. (2008). A sociocultural exploration of epistemological beliefs. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing, knowledge and beliefs: Epistemological studies across diverse cultures (pp. 177–195). New York: Springer.
Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Stahl, E. (2011). The Generative Nature of Epistemological Judgments: Focusing on Interactions Instead of Elements to Understand the Relationship Between Epistemological Beliefs and Cognitive Flexibility. In: Elen, J., Stahl, E., Bromme, R., Clarebout, G. (eds) Links Between Beliefs and Cognitive Flexibility. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1793-0_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1793-0_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-1792-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-1793-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)