Searching for Meaning: Epistemological Beliefs about School and
Their Relationships with Motivation to Learn
Robert A. Mansell, Barbara A. Greene, and Teresa K. DeBacker
University of Oklahoma

 

Paper presented at the 9th International Conference on Motivation, Lisbon, Portugal.
Can access this presentation: http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/G/Barbara.A.Greene-1/
 

Although the study of epistemological beliefs has been applied to important questions since the 1980s (e.g., Ryan, 1984; Hofer & Pintrich, 1997; Schommer, Crouse, & Rhodes, 1992; Schommer-Aikens, Mau, Brookhart, & Hutter, 2000), there is still little research on how beliefs about knowledge and learning help us understand student motivation (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997; Qian and Alvermann, 1995). Prior research has shown that at least some aspects of epistemic beliefs are related to learnerís achievement goals (Ravindran, Greene & DeBacker, in press), cognitive engagement and strategy use (Kardash & Howell, 2000; Ravindran, Greene & DeBacker, in press; Ryan, 1984; Schommer, Crouse, & Rhodes, 1992; Tsai, 1998), comprehension (Schommer, 1990; Schommer, et al., 1992), and achievement (Schommer, 1993; Schommer, Calvert, Gariglietti, & Bajaj, 1997; Schommer et al., 1992). The present study extends these findings by exploring previously unexamined aspects of epistemological beliefs that we believe are particularly relevant to instructional settings and their relationships with self-efficacy, motivation type (i.e., intrinsic and extrinsic from Deci & Ryan, 2000) and cognitive engagement.

Work in the area of personal epistemology recently seems to be converging around two categories of epistemological beliefs: beliefs about knowledge (that is, the structure certainty of knowledge) and beliefs about knowing (that is, the source and justification of knowledge) (Hofer, 2000; Pintrich, 2002). We believe that in order to understand the amotivation of some adolescents, we also need to examine beliefs about the purposes of schooling and the knowledge gained in school. To this end we developed the Beliefs about School Learning Questionnaire.

The decision to develop a new instrument was partially based on concerns noted about current epistemic belief instruments (e.g., Clarebout, Elen, Luyten, & Bamps, 2001; Duell & Schommer-Aikins, 2001; Hofer & Pintrich, 1997) and on the perceived need to include dimensions that might inform motivational differences better than the existing scales (Qian & Alvermann, 1995). However, our main concern was to develop a measure of those epistemological beliefs that would help us understand the role that beliefs about school and school knowledge might play in the achievement motivation of students, especially students who come from the minority groups that are dropping out of high school in the US at rates higher than Caucasian students (e.g., Hispanic and African-American students, NCES, 2000). Ogbu and colleagues (Ogbu, 1992; Fordham and Ogbu, 1986) have argued that some minority groups develop an oppositional stance toward majority culture institutions (i.e., schools) that is related to distrust in the impact those institutions have on their group. Therefore we have developed and validated an instrument to measure such beliefs.
 

The Beliefs about School Learning Questionnaire (BASLQ) has four subscales (see Table 1 for sample items). The constructed and commodity subscales identify the degree to which academic knowledge is viewed as either something which a student constructs while interacting with the material or a commodity that students obtain from sources such as teachers and text books without subjecting it to their personal interpretation. The remaining two subscales examine the degree to which academic knowledge is viewed as either a tool for empowerment or an attempt by socializing forces to subjugate the student. The empowerment scale contains items describing the view that academic knowledge is a tool for increasing oneís personal and interpersonal control. The subjugation scale contains items describing the view that academic knowledge represents an attempt by mainstream authorities to control studentsí knowledge and opinions and alienate them from their culture of origin. Importantly, empowerment and subjugation are not conceived as opposing ends of the same construct.

In regard to relationships between our beliefs scales and self-efficacy, motivation type and cognitive engagement, we expected that the subjugation subscale would predict amotivation and be predicted by extrinsic-introjected motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000) and the commodity view of academic knowledge. Additionally, we examined the related question of whether subjugation predicts shallow "going through the motions" engagement. We also expected that the constructed view of knowledge would predict intrinsic motivation, self-efficacy and deep cognitive engagement.

Method

Participants

 The participants were 147 undergraduate students at a large mid-western university who received course credit for volunteering. Although a large portion of these volunteers were from upper division educational psychology courses, about 35% were freshman and sophomores from a career exploration class. Approximately two thirds of the respondents were female. Approximately 22% of the participants were from minority groups, which is consistent with the racial/ethnic make-up of the university.

Instrumentation
 Each respondent completed a packet consisting of five surveys. All surveys were comprised of six-point Likert scales anchored with "Strongly Disagree" and "Strongly Agree."

 Beliefs about School Learning Questionnaire (BASLQ). The original number of items developed for the sub-scale of this new instrument were as follows: subjugation had 10 items; commodity had 12 items; constructed knowledge had 11; and empowerment had 10.

Self-efficacy. This four-item instrument measures student confidence in their ability to learn, understand, and master material encountered in their college classes. It has been reliable and valid in prior work (e.g., Greene & Miller, 1996)

The Academic Motivation Scale (AMS). The sub-scales used from the AMS (Vallerand et al., 1993) were amotivation, extrinsic-introjected, and intrinsic motivation.

The Epistemological Beliefs Inventory (EBI). This instrument was used to provide convergent validity evidence for the BASLQ. The EBI possesses five sub-scales: Omniscent Authority, Certain Knowledge, Quick Learning, Simple Knowledge, and Innate Ability (Bendixen et al., 1998).

Cognitive Engagement. This subscale assesses both deep cognitive engagement and shallow cognitive engagement . The items have been shown to be valid and reliable in prior work (e.g., Greene & Miller, 1996; Kardash, & Amlund, 1991).

Procedure
Volunteers completed the surveys in groups of 10 to 15. The average completion time was approximately 20 minutes.

Results

Reliabilities for all Scales and Sub-scales
 The sub-scale reliabilities for the BASLQ. were as follows: empowerment with 8 items = .76; subjugation with 8 items = .78; constructed with 10 items = .71; and commodity with 11 items = .69. Reliability coefficients for the sub-scales on the remaining instruments were sufficient for use in these analyses as they were between .69 and .88.
CFAs for the Beliefs about School Learning Questionnaire (BASLQ)

 Confirmatory factor analyses were performed on the items for each BASLQ sub-scale using LISREL 8.52 (Joreskog & Sörbom, 2002). We used the following fit indices: Root Mean Residual (RMR), with optimal values falling below .10; Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and Norm Fit Index ó with values above .90 indicating good fit (Kline, 1998) Additionally, we used the ratio of Chi Sq/df, with ratios less that 3 being considered acceptable (Kline, 1998).

Inter-correlations Between Sub-scales of the BASLQ and Theoretically Related Constructs.

 As expected theoretically, statistically significant positive correlations were found between the commodity subscale and the EBI's subscales for simple knowledge (r =.34), certain knowledge (r =.26), quick learning (r =.20), and fixed ability to learn (r =.31). The constructed subscale was expected to be negatively correlated with certain knowledge (r = -.27), and quick learning (r = -.12), and simple knowledge (r = -.01, ns). See Table 3 for all correlations.
 The empowerment subscale, as expected, was positively correlated with the constructed subscale (r =.58), self-efficacy (r = .19), deep cognitive engagement (r =.27), and intrinsic motivation (r =.35). It was also correlated with extrinsic motivation (r =.25) and shallow cognitive engagement (r = -.15). The subjugation subscale was expected to be positively correlated with the commodity subscale (r =.59), shallow cognitive engagement (r =.29), and amotivation (r =.34). See Table 4 for all correlations.
Path Models
 We tested four path models to explore the relationships among the BASLQ scales and the motivation-related variables. Each of the four path models tested utilized LISREL 8.52 (Joreskog & Sörbom, 2002). Results are included in Table 2 as the interpretation of fit indices for these models parallels that used in CFA.

Model 1
The intent of the first model was to predict deep cognitive engagement using direct paths from self-efficacy and constructed knowledge, as well as indirect paths from these variables mediated through their impact on intrinsic motivation. Empowerment was also included in this model as being predicted by constructed knowledge and predicting intrinsic motivation. The overall model was supported as indicated by the fit indices shown in Table 2. Except for the path from empowerment to intrinsic, all specified paths were significant. Deep cognitive engagement was predicted significantly by self-efficacy (ß = .31, t = 3.55), constructed knowledge (ß  = .20, t = 2.16) and intrinsic motivation (ß = .21, t = 2.20). Intrinsic motivation was, in turn, predicted by constructed (ß  = .41, t = 4.66), but less so by self-efficacy (ß = .18, t = 2.06). Additionally empowerment was significantly predicted by constructed (ß = .59, t = 7.51)

Models 2 and 3
 The intent of the next set of analyses was to compare two models examining the inter-relationships between the epistemic constructs of commodity and subjugation, the motivational constructs of extrinsic-introjected, and shallow cognitive engagement.
Model 2 suggested that shallow cognitive engagement would be predicted by direct paths from commodity, extrinsic-introjected, and subjugation. Although the overall model had some support, as the fit indices in Table 2 show, the c 2 approached significance (p = .06) and the c 2/df was greater than the optimal 3. This is likely to be a result of the non-significant path from subjugation to shallow cognitive engagement (ß = .15, t = 1.39).

Model 3 specified that shallow cognitive engagement would be predicted by direct paths from commodity ( ß = .33, t= 3.79), and extrinsic-introjected (ß = .29, t= 3.31), and that subjugation would be predicted by direct paths from these scales as well (commodity = ß.58, t= 7.47; extrinsic-introjected (ß  = .33, t= 1.93, ns). The data fit this model better than Model 2, which had included the link between subjugation and shallow cognitive engagement. A good fit of this model to the data was indicated by the non-significant c 2 and strong fit indices shown in Table 2.

Model 4
This model tested amotivation as predicted by a direct, positive path from extrinsic- introjected motivation, a direct, negative path from intrinsic motivation, and a positive indirect path from commodity to subjugation and from subjugation to amotivation. Although all paths were in the expected direction in terms of negative or positive relationships, but only the paths from commodity to subjugation and from subjugation to amotivation were significant (ß = .59, t = 7.37, and ß = .35, t = 3.82, respectively). Despite the lack of significance in the other paths, this indirect path predicting amotivation from commodity as mediated through subjugation was strong enough to support the model with a c 2 value of 5.67 (non-significant) and acceptable fit indices as shown in Table 2.

Discussion

The psychometric properties of the BASLQ were supported by the confirmatory factor analysis, the examination of reliabilities, and the inter-correlations with constructs that are theoretically related. Additionally, evidence was provided to support the idea that the constructs of constructed knowledge and knowledge as a preformed commodity directly influence the likelihood of a student adopting either the subjugation or empowerment view of academic knowledge.
The usefulness of these newly conceived dimensions of beliefs about school learning in understanding student motivation to learn was borne out by the results of our path analyses. The model for predicting deep cognitive engagement indicated that the belief of knowledge as constructed contributed to the prediction along with self-efficacy and their intrinsic motivation. The belief in the subjugation purpose of academic knowledge predicted amotivation, as expected. However, that belief was not significantly related to shallow cognitive engagement in the path model, which was surprising based on the zero-order correlation.
The connection of subjugation to amotivation is of key importance. First, it displays the utility of the subjugation construct by providing a connection to student engagement. Second, it indicates that this instrument may aid in the identification of groups of students who are likely to benefit from a concerted attempt to alter their view of schooling such that it is no longer viewed as an oppressive thumb under which they are placed.
Taken as a whole these analyses indicate the utility of extending our conception of beliefs beyond beliefs about knowledge and about knowing to include information as to the intent of and actual role played by the academic knowledge which is being acquired. These added dimensions may be particularly important in identifying and intervening with students who feel alienated from school or from academic learning. Connections between these perceptions of intent and motivational factors such as amotivation and extrinsic motivation give merit to further examination of these constructs.
References
Bendixen, L. D., Schraw, G., & Dunkle, M. E. (1998). Epistemic beliefs and moral reasoning. The Journal of Psychology, 132(2), 187-200.
Clarebout, G., Elen, J., Luyten, L., & Bamps, H. (2001). Assessing epistemological
beliefs: Schommerís Questionnaire revisited. Educational Research and Evaluation, 7(1), 53-77.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan R.M. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
Duell, O. K. & Schommer-Aikins, M. (2001). Measures of peopleís beliefs about knowledge and
learning. Educational Psychology Review, 13(4), 419-449.
Greene, B.A., & Miller, R.B. (1996). Influences on course performance: Goals, perceived ability, and self-regulation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 181-192.
Hofer, B. K. (2000). Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in personal epistemology.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 378-405.
Jörkeskg K. G. & Sörbom, D. (2002). LISREL 8.52 Chicago: Scientific Software International, Inc.
Kardash, C.M., & Amlund, J.T. (1991). Self-reported learning strategies and learning from expository text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 16, 117-138.
Kardash, C., & Howell, K.L. (2000). Effects of epistemological beliefs and topic-specific beliefs on undergraduatesí cognitive and strategic processing of dual-positional text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 524-235.
Kardash, C. M. & Scholes, R. J. (1996). Effects of preexisting beliefs, epistemological beliefs, and need for cognition on interpretation of controversial issues. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 260-271.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford.
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. 103-118). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Qian, G. & Alvermann, D. (1995). The role of epistemological beliefs and learned helplessness in secondary school studentsí learning science concepts from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 282-292.
Ryan, M. P. (1984). Monitoring text comprehension: Individual differences in epistemological
 standards. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 248-254.
Ravindran, B. & Greene, B. A. (April, 2000). The Role of Goals, Beliefs and Cognitive Engagement in the Prediction of Preservice Teachersí Knowledge Integration. Paper presented at the 2000 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research, New Orleans, LA.
Ryan, M. P. (1984). Conceptions of prose coherence: Individual differences in epistemological standards. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1226-1238.
Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 498-504.
Schommer, M. (1993). Epistemological development and academic performance among secondary students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 406-411.
Schommer-Aikins, M. (2002). An evolving theoretical framework for an epistemological belief system. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schommer, M., Calvert, C., Gariglietti, G., & Bajaj, A. (1997). The development of
epistemological beliefs among secondary students: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 37-40.
Schommer, M., Crouse, A., & Rhodes, N. (1992). Epistemological beliefs and mathematical
text comprehension: Believing it is simple does not make it so. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 435-443.
Schommer-Aikens, M., Mau, W., Brookhart, S. & Hutter, R. (2000). Understanding middle school students' beliefs about knowledge and learning using a multidimensional paradigm. Journal of Educational Research, 94(2), 120-127.
Schraw, G., Bendixen, L. D., & Dunkle, M. E. (2002). Development and validation of the Epistemological Beliefs Inventory (EBI). In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tsai, C. C. (1998). An analysis of scientific epistemological beliefs and learning orientations of Taiwanese eighth graders. Science Education, 82(4), 473-489.
Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., Briere, N. M., Senecal, C. & Vallieres, E. F. (1993). On the assessment of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education: Evidence on the concurrent and construct validity of the academic motivation scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 159-172.
Table 1
Three sample items from the four subscales of the Beliefs about School Learning Questionnaire
Sample Item Target Belief
Too much mainstream knowledge will weaken my connection to people that I care about. Subjugation
Schools try to program students so that they will not try to change things
The type of knowledge that you learn in school is only useful if you agree with mainstream authorities.
If I want to have the power to change society, I need to learn as much as possible.  Empowerment
Learning is a way to give yourself power.
Schools try to educate students so that they can change things.
The meaning of the facts learned in school is mostly determined by the teacher and the textbook Commodity
Students need to learn the proper interpretation of knowledge.
Knowledge is usually absolute.
When students encounter material to be learned, they should try to add their own perspective to it. Constructed
The meaning of facts learned in school has as much to do with the student as with the teacher and the textbook.
Much of what I learn in school is something that I create with help from teachers and books.
 
Table 2
Fit Indices for CFA and Path Models tested
SCALE or model tested RMR GFI CFI NFI __/df
Subjugation Fit Indices .072 .91 .92 .86 2.06
Empowerment Fit Indices .076 .91 .92 .86 1.96
Commodity Fit Indices .055 .96 .99 .92 1.15
Constructed Fit Indices .083 .87 .89 .79 1.88
Model 1 .011 1.00 1.00 .99 .35
Model 2 .042 .98 .96 .95 3.66
Model 3 .027 .99 .99 .97 1.88
Model 4 .036 .98 .96 .92 1.89

Table 3
Correlations between the EBI subscales and the Beliefs about School Learning Questionnaire
  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Fixed ability  1
2. Omn.authority -.013 1
3. Quick .513** -.06 1
4. Simple .27** .33** .34** 1
5. Certain .07 .25** .16* .17* 1
6. Subjucation .435** -.03 .37** .28** .07 1
7. Empowerment .01 .00 -.19* -.12 -.25** -.07 1
8. Commodity .31** .11 .20* .34** .26** .595** -.20* 1
8. Constructed -.04 .05 -.18* -.012 -.27** -.11 .595** -.30** 1

Notes: ** Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (1-tailed); * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed); Listwise N=142
 

Table 4
Correlations between the Beliefs about School Learning Questionnaire and the motivation and cognitive engagement variables
  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 Subjugation 1
2 Empowerment -.05 1
3. Commodity .59** -.20* 1
4. Constructed -.11 .60** -.31** 1
5. Deep -.06 .275** -.06 .35** 1
6. Shallow .30** -.14 .30** -.055 -.30** 1
7. Self-efficacy -.021 .23* -.03 .28** .45** -.22* 1
8. Intrinsic Motivation .05 .36** -.12 .39** .235* -.04 .23* 1
9. Extrinsic Introjected .16 .22* .05 .295** .06 .26** .045 .32** 1
10. Amotivation .335** -.03 .18* .00 -.28** .15* -.18* -.14* -.03 1
Notes: ** Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (1-tailed); * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed); Listwise N=139
 

OU Home | Disclaimer | Copyright | Equal Opportunity | OU Web Policy