Relationships between student scientific epistemological beliefs and perceptions of constructivist learning environments

This article was downloaded by: [National Chiao Tung University 國立 交通大學]

On: 28 April 2014, At: 00:52 Publisher: Routledge

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational Research

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rere20

Relationships between

student scientific

epistemological beliefs

and perceptions of

constructivist learning

environments

Chin-Chung Tsai

Published online: 02 Dec 2010.

To cite this article: Chin-Chung Tsai (2000) Relationships between student scientific epistemological beliefs and perceptions of constructivist

learning environments, Educational Research, 42:2, 193-205, DOI: 10.1080/001318800363836

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/001318800363836

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Relationships between student

scientiŽ c epistemological

beliefs and perceptions of

constructivist learning

environments

Chin-Chung Tsai

, Centre for Teacher Education, National Chiao Tung University, 1001 Ta Hsueh Road, Hsinchu 300, Taiwan

Summary

This study was conducted to explore the interplay between students’ scientiŽ c epistemological beliefs and their perceptions of constructivist learning environ-ments. Through analysing 1,176 Taiwanese tenth-graders’ (16-year-olds) ques-tionnaire responses, this study found that students tended to perceive that actual learning environments were less constructivist orientated than what they pre-ferred. Students having epistemological beliefs more orientated to constructivist views of science (as opposed to empiricist views about science) tended to have a view that actual learning environments did not provide sufŽ cient opportunities for social negotiations (p < 0.01) and prior knowledge integration (p < 0.01); and moreover, they show signiŽ cantly stronger preferences to learn in the con-structivist learning environments where they could (1) interact and negotiate meanings with others (p < 0.001), (2) integrate their prior knowledge and experi-ences with newly constructed knowledge (p < 0.001) and (3) meaningfully control their learning activities (p < 0.001). The main thrust of the Ž ndings drawn from this study indicates that teachers need to be very aware of students’ epistemological orientation towards scientiŽ c knowledge, and to complement these preferences when designing learning experiences, especially to provide con-structivist-based lessons to enhance science learning for students who are epistemologically constructivist orientated.

Keywords: constructivism, scientiŽ c epistemological beliefs, science education,

learning environments

Acknowledgement: The funding of this research work was provided by the National

Science Council, Taiwan, ROC, under grants NSC 88-2511-S-009-001 and NSC 87-2511-S-009-011.

Address for correspondence: Dr Chin-Chung Tsai, Centre for Teacher Education,

National Chiao Tung University, 1001 Ta Hsueh Road, Hsinchu 300, Taiwan. Tel: 886 3 5931691. Fax: 886 3 5938083. E-mail: cctsai@cc.nctu.edu.tw

Educational Research Vol. 42 No. 2 Summer 2000 193–205

Educational Research ISSN 0013-1881 print/ISSN 1469-5847 online © 2000 NFER http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals

Introduction

In the past two decades, science educators have contributed substantially to a better understanding of students’ scientiŽ c ‘misconceptions’ or ‘alternative con-ceptions’ (Wandersee, Mintzes and Novak, 1994). This research is particularly signiŽ cant since most of us agree that the learners’ prior knowledge highly in u-ences how new knowledge is constructed. However, to fully account for the organizing role of prior knowledge in gaining new knowledge and skills, educators should not limit their attention to students’ alternative conceptions. Other aspects of their knowledge structures and patterns of reasoning are worth investigating, including philosophical and attitudinal variables. For example, there is research evidence that students’ ScientiŽ c Epistemological Beliefs (SEB) play an essential role in determining their learning orientations towards science and the ways of organizing cognitive structures of scientiŽ c knowledge (Edmondson, 1989; Tsai, 1998a, 1998b, 1999a, 1999b). Science educators are aware of the importance of SEB on the process of conceptual change (Posner et al., 1982; Tyson et al., 1997).

These beliefs also very likely guide students’ meta-learning assumptions (Roth and Roychoudhury, 1994; Tsai, 1998b).

Moreover, educators should note that in science classrooms how the teacher explains scientiŽ c ideas and organizes information could be important as a model in determining students’ SEB and their learning perceptions. That is, the learn-ing environment created by the science teacher also plays a role in shaplearn-ing students’ perceptions of the way science is practised and how new knowledge is created. Eric, a subject in a study by Tobias (1990), wrote the following essay re ecting on his experiences when he was enrolled in a college physics course:

‘The class consisted basically of problem-solving and not of any interesting or inspiring exchange of ideas. The professor spent the Ž rst 15 minutes deŽ ning terms and apparently that was all the new information we were going to get on kinematics . . . I still get the feeling that unlike a humanities course, here the professor is the keeper of the information, the one who knows all the answers. This does little to propagate discussion or dissent. The profes-sor does examples the ‘right way’ and we are to mimic this as accurately as possible. Our opinions are not valued, especially since there is only one right answer, and at this level, usually only one [right] way to get it’ (pp. 20–1). Eric’s re ections could be interpreted as follows. First, the learning environment directed by the professor may misguide how Eric will view scientiŽ c knowledge by leading him to think that scientiŽ c knowledge is a collection of absolute truths. Secondly, perhaps, Eric’s beliefs are close to those of a constructivist view of science (asserting that scientiŽ c knowledge is constructed on the basis of scien-tists’ agreed paradigms, evidence and negotiation, as opposed to empiricist views of science), so he is not comfortable in such a science classroom emphasizing didactic methods, a learning environment opposite to his preferences.

Students’ learning environment perceptions, to a certain extent, also represent their beliefs about what constitutes learning and how knowledge is created. As an example, a high school student in Gunstone’s (1991) study who strongly asserted that science was a collection of proven facts and formulae did not see any advan-tage in the ‘conceptual change’ teaching strategy (i.e. an example of so-called constructivist teaching strategy) even after he had really experienced it. The

preceding discussion gives us some clues for the relationships between students’ SEB and their perceptions or preferences for certain learning environments.

Relevant literature: the constructivist epistemology

The possible interaction between student SEB and learning environment per-ceptions could also be illustrated through exploring the constructivist epistem-ology. Constructivism is a relatively new paradigm for education, philosophy and psychology. The constructivist epistemology could be applied to both the merits of contemporary philosophy of science and those of learning psychology. The epistemology reveals an analogy that the developmental mechanism of scientiŽ c theories is similar to an individual’s knowledge construction since one’s child-hood (Cleminson, 1990; Duschl, 1990; Nussbaum, 1983; Wandersee, 1992). This analogy does not assert that the content of students’ conceptual develop-ment recapitulates those ideas presented in the history of science (though, in some cases, this really happens: see e.g. Eckstein and Kozhevnikov, 1997); rather, it asserts that the conditions, the justiŽ cations and the processes of conceptual growth for both scientists and learners are quite similar. This concurs with what Duschl (1990) has stated, that ‘learning as it occurs within individuals is guided by the same basic sets of principles that guide the growth of knowledge in science’ (p. 12). Tsai (1998c) summarizes eight assertions of the constructivist epistem-ology by drawing many cases from the history of science and philosophy of science, and from educational studies regarding students’ science learning. These assertions are listed in Table 1, providing a potential interplay between the phil-osophy of science and students’ learning psychology in science.

These assertions discuss the theory-laden and conceptual change qualities of scientiŽ c knowledge acquisition, and further illustrate how our knowledge in science should be viewed as an invented reality, which is also constructed through social negotiations and through contextual and cultural impacts. The interplay (of the constructivist epistemology) between the philosophy of science and students’ science learning implies that there may be a similar interaction between students’ philosophical views of science (i.e. SEB) and their learning assumptions or orientations.

In this study, students’ views of science were represented by their scores gath-ered from a SEB survey. Student perceptions of constructivist learning environ-ments, which were assessed through exploring students’ views about what ideal and actual instructional environments look like, were used as an indicator to reveal their learning assumptions or orientations. Currently, the practice of con-structivism is highly advocated by science educators (Tobin and Tippins, 1993; Tsai, 1998c; Yager, 1995), and it is also widely applied to various disciplines (Brooks and Brooks, 1993; Fosnot, 1996). Particularly, numerous science edu-cators emphasize the creation of constructivist learning environments for students. Students’ scientiŽ c epistemological beliefs have been recognized as an essential component of science learning environments (Roth and Lucas, 1997). The practice of constructivism in science education may not be fully successful without considering student SEB variations. Through analysing more than 1,000 Taiwanese tenth-graders’ (16-year-olds) questionnaire responses, this study is an attempt to examine the possible relationships between student SEB and percep-tions of constructivist learning environments, with applicapercep-tions of the improve-ment of science teaching and learning.

Epistemological beliefs and constructivism 195

Methodology

Subjects

The initial sample of this study included 1,283 Taiwanese tenth-graders (16-year-olds). The population was stratiŽ ed into three demographic areas, North-ern, Central and Southern Taiwan. Six high schools from Northern Taiwan, four schools from Central Taiwan and four schools from Southern Taiwan were selected. The school number ratio selected roughly corresponds to the actual high school number ratio across these three areas. For each selected school, two classes were chosen. Although this sample could not be viewed as a national sample, the selected Taiwanese tenth-graders had various academic backgrounds, demo-graphic areas and socio-economic levels, and may, to a certain extent, be said to represent Taiwanese tenth-graders. Because some students failed to complete all of the questionnaires used in this study (described later) or had missing data in the questionnaire(s), their results were excluded from Ž nal analyses of this study. Consequently, the Ž nal sample for this study included 1,176 students and 47 per cent of them are females.

TAB L E 1 The constructivist epistemology: the interplay between the philosophy of science and students’ learning psychology in science

Constructivist philosophy of science Students’ learning psychology in science 1 Observations are theory-laden Students’ existing conceptions play an

important role for new knowledge acquisition 2 Theories will be retained even when Students’ alternative conceptions are

encountering apparent anomalies resistant to change by conventional teaching strategies

3 Science grows through a series of Students should experience a series of revolutions conceptual changes when learning science 4 The scientiŽ c theories between two Students’ ideas and those of teachers may

(or more) paradigms are be incommensurable; teachers should incommensurable understand students’ learning/thinking from

their perspectives

5 Science does not represent the Students are knowledge producers, not reality while scientists are producers knowledge reproducers; learning is an active of the reality, not the reproducers process of knowledge construction, not a of the reality; scientiŽ c knowledge passive process of knowledge reproduction; comes from human imagination learning science requires students’ creativity 6 ScientiŽ c knowledge comes from a Students learn effectively and meaningfully series of criticism, validation, in a favourable environment where their ideas consensus and social negotiation in are explored, compared, criticized and the scientiŽ c community reinforced through talking and listening to

others

7 There is no certain ‘scientiŽ c method’ Students learn by various methods; teachers and there is not only one way to should encourage students’ multiple ways of interpret the same natural phenomena researching, questioning and problem-solving 8 ScientiŽ c knowledge is the product Students’ knowledge acquisition occurs in a

of a complex social, historical, complex social, historical, cultural and cultural and psychological activity psychological context

Instrument assessing student scientiŽ c epistemological beliefs

Researchers have developed various instruments to assess students’ views about science. Those recently developed include Views on Science–Technology–Society

(VOSTS: Aikenhead and Ryan, 1992), and Edmondson’s (1989) and Pomeroy’s (1993) questionnaires. Aikenhead and Ryan’s VOSTS instrument includes a total of 114 items; thus, it is too demanding for tenth-graders to complete well. Edmondson’s questionnaire, however, lacks a high consistency in assessing students’ SEB. Pomeroy’s questionnaire, however, has a relatively high consis-tency in assessing students’ SEB and it includes relatively few questions (i.e. 16 items used in this study). Therefore, this study used a Chinese version of Pomeroy’s questionnaire to assess students’ SEB. The Chinese version of Pomeroy’s questionnaire has been used in some other studies with Taiwanese secondary school students (e.g. Tsai, 1996a, 1996b, 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 1999a, 1999b, 1999c), and these studies have suggested that it shows satisfactory relia-bility and construct validity in assessing student SEB. Also, when compared to other like instruments, Pomeroy’s question content more closely parallels the assertions presented in Table 1 regarding the constructivist philosophy of science. The questionnaire consists of bipolar agree/disagree statements on a 5–1 Likert scale. The scores of the questionnaire could be viewed as representing a one-dimensional assessment of student SEB; namely, a continuum from empiricist to constructivist perspectives. The empiricist view describes that scientiŽ c knowl-edge is a discovery of an objective reality external to ourselves and it is discov-ered by observing, experimenting or application of a universal scientiŽ c method. The empiricist position may also claim that evidence in science accumulated carefully will produce infallible knowledge. On the other hand, the constructivist views of science, shown as the assertions listed in Table 1, highlight the theory-laden quality of scientiŽ c exploration and the role of conceptual change in the progression of scientiŽ c understanding. These views also support an idea that scientiŽ c knowledge should be viewed as an invented reality, which is also con-structed through the use of agreed upon paradigms, acceptable forms of evidence and social negotiations in reaching conclusions, as well as cultural and contex-tual impacts as recognized by practising scientists (Tsai, 1998c). This study used Pomeroy’s items that represent ‘traditional views of science’ (empiricist views) and ‘non-traditional views of science’ (constructivist views). The following four items were sample questions cited from the questionnaire:

1 Scientists rigorously attempt to eliminate the human perspective from obser-vations (empiricist view, assessing student SEB regarding the Ž rst assertion listed in Table 1, which will be scored in a reverse manner, described later). 2 Non-sequential thinking, i.e. taking conceptual leaps, is characteristic of many

scientists (constructivist view, assessing student SEB regarding the third asser-tion listed in Table 1).

3 Legitimate scientiŽ c ideas sometimes come from dreams and hunches (con-structivist view, assessing student SEB regarding the Ž fth assertion listed in Table 1).

4 Different cultural groups have different processes of gaining valid knowledge of natural laws (constructivist view, assessing student SEB regarding the eighth assertion listed in Table 1).

Pomeroy’s (1993) questionnaire included a total of 17 items on ‘traditional Epistemological beliefs and constructivism 197

views of science’ and ‘non-traditional views of science’. However, a prior study (Tsai, 1996a) revealed that one item in the Chinese version of Pomeroy’s ques-tionnaire did not show adequate consistency in assessing students’ SEB. The present study excludes this item when investigating students’ SEB. Hence, the Ž nal questionnaire used in this study included only 16 items. Pomeroy reported that the reliability for these two parts was moderately high (Cronbach’s a = 0.65, and 0.59, respectively). The same coefŽ cients calculated from this study were 0.68 and 0.65 respectively for the two parts of the questionnaire.

Because this study viewed that students’ SEB could be represented by a con-tinuum from empiricist to constructivist perspectives, students’ questionnaire responses were scored as follows to represent their SEB. For the constructivist perspective items, a ‘strongly agree’ response was assigned a score of 5 and a ‘strongly disagree’ response assigned a score of 1, while items representing an empiricist view were scored in a reverse manner. A previous study that compared student questionnaire results with interview details of 20 14-year-olds (Tsai, 1998b) supported the conclusion that such a scoring method, in general, could differentiate student SEB variations; this scoring method was also employed in some other studies on student SEB (e.g. Tsai, 1999a, 1999b, 1999c). Students having strong beliefs regarding the constructivist position thus have higher scores on the questionnaire; on the other hand, students with empiricist-aligned SEB have lower scores. Prior interview details also suggested that students who scored in the middle in the questionnaire tended to have both constructivist- and empiri-cist-oriented epistemological views of science (Tsai, 1998b).

Instrument assessing student perceptions of constructivist learning

environments

To assess students’ perceptions of constructivist learning environments, a Chinese version of the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES),

originally developed by Taylor and Fraser (1991), was administered. The CLES contains the following four scales (seven items for each scale):

1 Negotiation scale: measuring perceptions of the extent to which there are

opportunities for students to interact, negotiate meaning and build consensus with others.

2 Prior knowledge scale: measuring perceptions of the extent to which there are

opportunities for students to meaningfully integrate prior knowledge and experiences with newly acquired knowledge, and to have enough time to con-struct ideas.

3 Autonomy scale: measuring perceptions of the extent to which there are

oppor-tunities for students to practise deliberate and meaningful control over learn-ing activities, and to think independently of the teacher and others.

4 Student-centredness scale: measuring perceptions of the extent to which there

are opportunities for students to experience learning as a process of creating and resolving personally problematic experiences.

Also, the CLES includes two forms, one the actual (or perceived) form, assess-ing the extent of the agreement between actual learnassess-ing environments and con-structivist learning environments, and the other the preferred form, assessing the match between students’ views about ideal learning environments and construc-tivist ones. Both forms were administered in this study. Taylor and Fraser (ibid.)

reported the a -reliability to be 0.79, 0.74, 0.72 and 0.61 for each scale of the actual form, and 0.85, 0.69, 0.73 and 0.73 for each scale of the preferred form of CLES. The same coefŽ cients calculated from the results of this study were 0.84, 0.78, 0.78 and 0.72 for actual form, and 0.81, 0.77, 0.79 and 0.70 for pre-ferred form. Taylor and Fraser also conclude that these scales display both dis-criminant and predictive validity. The following cites four sample items from the CLES instrument:

1 In this class, I ask other students about their ideas. (negotiation scale, actual form)

2 In this class, I prefer to see if what I learned in the past still makes sense to me. (prior knowledge scale, preferred form)

3 In this class, I do investigations in my own way. (autonomy scale, actual form) 4 In this class, I prefer the teacher to show the correct method for solving prob-lems. (student-centredness scale, preferred form, stated in a reverse manner) Table 2 illustrates how the four scales are related to the eight assertions listed in Table 1 regarding the constructivist views of student science learning. For example, the Ž rst three assertions (about the concept-laden quality of learning science) are related to the CLES prior knowledge scale. The Ž fth assertion (about the invented nature of students’ ideas), clearly, is related to the autonomy scale. Each CLES item has a Ž ve-point Likert scale, with categories ranging from ‘very often’ (5) to ‘never’ (1).

Students’ responses on the CLES instrument were scored as follows to repre-sent their perceptions of constructivist learning environments. For their responses on the items presented in a constructivist view, the Ž ve-point Likert scale was scored, with 5, ‘very often’, down to 1, ‘never’, responses, whereas students’ responses on those statements presented in a traditional or non-constructivist way were scored in the reverse manner. The total scores for each student’s responses on each scale in both forms of the CLES were used as indi-cators to display their perceptions of constructivist learning environments, hence every student had eight different scores to show their perceptions towards such environments. Since each scale of the CLES includes seven items, students’ scores on each scale could range from 7 to 35. Students who showed closer per-ceptions or stronger preferences for certain types of constructivist learning environment would gain higher scores on a related scale of the CLES, while students who favoured traditional ways of teaching were expected to have lower scores for the same scale. For instance, students showing a greater preference to learn by interacting with others’ ideas would have higher total scores on the Epistemological beliefs and constructivism 199

TAB L E 2 The relationships between the CLES instrument and the constructivist views for students’ science learning

CLES scale Relevant constructivist assertions for student science learning, as listed in Table 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Negotiation uu u Prior knowledge uu uu u Autonomy uu uu Student centredness uu u uu

uu highly related; u possibly related.

negotiation scale of the CLES preferred form than those showing a lower prefer-ence.

The CLES instrument has been used in other educational studies (see e.g. Roth and Roychoudhury, 1994) and its Chinese version (preferred form) was used in Tsai’s (1996a, 1997) study. The Chinese-version CLES (preferred form) was also validated by interviewing a group of Taiwanese 14-year-olds after actu-ally receiving constructivist-oriented or traditional-oriented teaching strategies.

Administration of the instruments

The order of administering the instruments was the CLES actual form Ž rst, then the SEB survey and Ž nally CLES preferred form. The period between the adminis-tration of two subsequent instruments was one to two weeks for all subjects.

Results

Perceptions of constructivist learning environments

Before examining the relationships between student SEB and learning environ-ment perceptions, it may be interesting to explore students’ responses on each CLES scale. Table 3 presents students’ average scores on each scale of the CLES actual form and preferred form.

First, students had comparable scores on each scale of the CLES actual form; however, their responses diverged on each scale of the CLES preferred form. For example, students show much stronger preferences for learning environments emphasizing their prior knowledge and experiences. On the other hand, student-centred learning environments, relatively, were not well-favoured by students; Figure 1 clearly illustrates these. These Ž ndings may indicate that students tended to enjoy a learning process that strongly involved their prior knowledge or every-day applications; however, they may still believe in the teacher’s authority in facili-tating their learning. Moreover, students’ scores on the preferred form were much higher than those on the actual form. When using (paired) t-tests to examine the differences between student actual form scores and preferred form scores, it was found that students’ scores on the preferred form were signiŽ cantly higher than those of the actual form on each scale, as shown in Table 3. This implied that many students tended to complain that actual learning environments did not adapt their preferences well and they tended to prefer learning environments

TAB LE 3 Student perceptions of constructivist learning environments as assessed by CLES actual and preferred forms (n = 1,176)

t-test between actual Actual Preferred and preferred scores ––––––––––––––– ––––––––––––––– –––––––––––––––––––––

Scale Mean S.D. Mean S.D. t

Negotiation 20.37 3.54 24.40 4.46 –30.2*** Prior knowledge 19.86 3.62 26.23 4.22 –45.0*** Autonomy 19.43 3.97 23.34 4.16 –22.9*** Student centredness 18.26 4.34 18.74 4.40 –2.54*

*** p < 0.001; *p < 0.05.

where they could have more opportunities to interact with others, integrate their prior knowledge, think independently and to resolve personally problematic experiences.

Relationships between student SEB and learning environment perceptions

In order to acquire quantitative results about the interplay between students’ SEB and their learning environment perceptions, the relationships between students’ responses on Pomeroy’s (1993) questionnaire and their scores on the CLES instrument were explored; the correlation coefŽ cients are presented in Table 4.

Students’ responses on the SEB instrument were signiŽ cantly correlated with their scores on two of the four scales of the CLES actual form and on three of the four scales of the preferred form. Students having SEB more orientated to con-structivist views of science tended to perceive that actual learning environments did not offer adequate opportunities for them to negotiate their ideas (r = –0.09, p < 0.01), nor integrate with their prior knowledge (r = –0.08, p < 0.01).

Moreover, students holding epistemological beliefs more close to constructivist views about science tended to show signiŽ cantly stronger preferences to learn in the constructivist environments, where they could: (1) interact, negotiate mean-ings and build consensus with others (r = 0.22, p < 0.001); (2) have enough time to integrate their prior knowledge and experiences with newly constructed knowl-edge (r = 0.20, p < 0.001); and (3) have opportunities to exercise deliberate and meaningful control over their learning activities and to think independently (r = 0.17, p < 0.001). That is, there is a positive relationship between ‘knowledge constructivist’ and ‘learning constructivist’ orientations, in Hashweh’s terminol-ogy (1996, p. 49). These Ž ndings are exactly the same as those in Tsai’s (1997) study with a small sample of Taiwanese 14-year-olds.

However, there was no signiŽ cant correlation between students’ epistemologi-cal beliefs about science and the extent of their preferences to experience learn-ing as a process of creatlearn-ing and resolvlearn-ing personally problematic experiences (i.e. Epistemological beliefs and constructivism 201

F IGUR E 1 Student perceptions of constructivist learning environments on each CLES scale (n = 1,176)

student-centredness scale). That is, constructivist-oriented SEB students did not tend to prefer student-centred learning activities more than did those who held empiricist views of science; and many of them, whether they were categorized as constructivist- or empiricist-oriented SEB learners, still tended to rely on teachers’ authority for lesson planning. By and large, the results in Table 4 revealed that there were some relationships between students’ scientiŽ c epistemo-logical beliefs and their perceptions of constructivist learning environments.

Furthermore, Table 3 shows that students, on average, had signiŽ cantly higher scores on the CLES preferred form than those on the actual form; and Table 4 reveals that, in many cases, there were negative relationships between student SEB orientations and perceptions of actual learning environments (i.e. empiricist-aligned SEB students had higher scores on the actual form than constructivist

SEB students), but positive relationships between student SEB and preferences for constructivist learning environments (i.e. empiricist-aligned SEB students had lower scores on the preferred form than constructivist SEB students). These

Ž ndings may suggest that empiricist-aligned SEB students may have relatively closer perceptions towards actual and preferred learning environments; however, constructivist-oriented SEB students may express a remarkable discrepancy towards these two sets of learning environments. The actual learning environ-ments (in general, conducted in traditional modes – e.g. almost one-way lectur-ing and textbook readlectur-ing) may favour students with empiricist-oriented SEB, as the actual learning environments better accommodate their preferences (though some studies found that there was no signiŽ cant relationship between student SEB orientations and science achievement as measured by traditional standard tests: see e.g. Tsai, 1998a, 1999a). However, the obvious discrepancy of percep-tions expressed by constructivist SEB students may cause difŽ culties for their science learning in common science classrooms. Educators and science teachers should recognize this discrepancy when implementing science instruction.

Implications

There were signiŽ cant differences of student perceptions towards actual and pre-ferred learning environments. Students tended to perceive that actual learning environments did not provide enough opportunities for social negotiations of

TABLE 4 The relationships between students’ epistemological views about science and their perceptions for constructivist learning environments (n = 1,176)

Negotiation Prior knowledge Autonomy Student centredness (actual) (actual) (actual) (actual)

SEB –0.09** –0.08** 0.04 0.02

Negotiation Prior knowledge Autonomy Student centredness (preferred) (preferred) (preferred) (preferred)

SEB 0.22*** 0.20*** 0.17*** 0.01

** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.

scientiŽ c ideas, a sound coherence of prior experiences, deliberate control of learning activities or for personalized instruction. This suggests that teachers, in general, need to conduct science lessons with a more constructivist-oriented mode of instruction for students than currently practised.

This study further reveals that there were some relationships between student scientiŽ c epistemological beliefs and their perceptions of constructivist learning environments. By and large, students with epistemological beliefs tending towards a more constructivist view of science tended also to prefer constructivist-oriented learning environments. The interaction between student SEB and learning environment perceptions indicates that students who express a philosophical per-spective closer to a constructivist view of science may beneŽ t most from con-structivist science teaching. It further implies that an appropriate view about a constructivist epistemology of science may be an essential prerequisite for imple-menting constructivist-based instructional strategies. Recent research asserts that students’ epistemological beliefs (either in general or about science) may come mainly from their formal schooling (Tsai, 1996a, 1996b). As a result, if formal schooling does not carefully address a constructivist epistemology for students, it is expected that the practice of constructivism in science education could not then be successful.

It is encouraging that recent practice of STS instruction (Science– Technology–Society instruction – integrated or interdisciplinary science curric-ula emphasizing the interplay between science, technology and society) has shown that it is a potential way of explicating the constructivist epistemology of science for students. The instructional content (e.g. historical cases and argu-ments in the development of science, discussion about the interaction of science, technology and society) and methodology (e.g. open-ended inquiry, role-playing activities, group learning, debates and discussion) of STS instruction could help students acquire constructivist views of science (Tsai, 1999d).

Furthermore, as found by previous studies (e.g. Edmondson, 1989; Tsai, 1998b), constructivist-oriented SEB students tended to employ more meaning-ful learning strategies, while empiricist-aligned SEB learners tended to use rote memorization when acquiring scientiŽ c knowledge. Earlier research also revealed that student epistemological orientations towards science were not signiŽ cantly correlated with their science achievement as measured by traditional tests (Tsai, 1998a, 1999a). That is, students having more constructivist-oriented SEB were not necessarily higher achievers, whereas students holding empiricist SEB were not necessarily lower achievers. This, as proposed by Novak (1985), implies that the traditional way of testing or evaluation cannot effectively differentiate the meaningfulness of students’ science learning.

This study was not conducted with an experimental research design in place; hence, it is limited to correlation analyses between students’ scientiŽ c epistemo-logical beliefs and learning perceptions. However, this research strongly suggests that student scientiŽ c epistemological beliefs were an essential component in determining students’ learning perceptions or orientations. The main thrust of the Ž ndings derived from this study indicates that teachers need to be highly aware of students’ epistemological orientation towards science, and to comple-ment these preferences when designing learning experiences, especially to provide constructivist-based lessons to enhance science learning for students who are epistemologically constructivist-oriented.

Epistemological beliefs and constructivism 203

References

AIKENHEAD, G. S. and RYAN, A. G. (1992) The development of a new instrument: ‘Views on Science–Technology–Society’ (VOSTS),Science Education,76, 477–91.

BROOKS, J. G. and BROOKS, M. G. (1993). The Case for Constructivist Classrooms. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

CLEMINSON, A. (1990). ‘Establishing an epistemological base for science teaching in the light of contemporary notions of the nature of science and how children learn science’,Journal of Research in Science Teaching,27, 429–45.

DUSCHL, R. A. (1990).Restructuring Science Education. New York: Teachers College Press.

ECKSTEIN, S. G. and KOZHEVNIKOV, M. (1997). ‘Parallelism in the development of children’s ideas and the historical development of projectile motion theories’, Inter-national Journal of Science Education,19, 1057–73.

EDMONDSON, K. M. (1989). The in uence of students’ conceptions of scientiŽ c knowledge and their orientations to learning on their choices of learning strategy in a college introductory level biology course. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

FOSNOT, C. T. (1996). Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives and Practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

GUNSTONE, R. F. (1991). ‘Constructivism and metacognition: theoretical issues and classroom studies.’ In: DUIT, R., GOLDBERG, F. and NIEDDERER, H. (Eds) Research in Physics Learning: Theoretical Issues and Empirical Studies. Kiel, Germany: Institute of Science Education, pp. 129–40.

HASHWEH, M. Z. (1996). ‘Effects of science teachers’ epistemological beliefs in teaching’,Journal of Research in Science Teaching,33, 47–63.

NOVAK, J. D. (1985). ‘Metalearning and metaknowledge strategies to help students learn how to learn.’ In: WEST, L. H. T. and PINES, A. L. (Eds) Cognitive Structure and Conceptual Change. Orlando, Fa.: Academic Press, pp. 189–209.

NUSSBAUM, J. (1983). ‘Classroom conceptual change: the lesson to be learned from the history of science.’ In: HELM, H. and NOVAK, J. D. (Eds) Proceedings of the Inter-national Seminar ‘Misconceptions in Science and Mathematics’. Ithaca, NY: Department of Education, Cornell University, pp. 290–99.

POMEROY, D. (1993). ‘Implications of teachers’ beliefs about the nature of science: comparison of the beliefs of scientists, secondary science teachers, and elementary teachers’,Science Education,77, 261–78.

POSNER, G. J., STRIKE, K. A., HEWSON, P. W. and GERTZOG, W. A. (1982). ‘Accommodation of a scientiŽ c conception: toward a theory of conceptual change’, Science Education,66, 211–29.

ROTH, W.-M. and LUCAS, K. B. (1997). ‘From “truth” to “invented reality”: a discourse analysis of high school physics students’ talk about scientiŽ c knowledge’,Journal of Research in Science Teaching,34, 145–79.

ROTH, W.-M. and ROYCHOUDHURY, A. (1994). ‘Physics students’ epistemologies and views about knowing and learning’,Journal of Research in Science Teaching,31, 5–30.

TAYLOR, P. C. and FRASER, B. J. (1991). CLES: an instrument for assessing construc-tivist learning environments. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Lake Geneva, Wis., USA, April. TOBIAS, S. (1990).They’re Not Dumb,They Are Different: Stalking the Second Tier. Tucson,

Ariz.: Research Corporation.

TOBIN, K. and TIPPINS, D. (1993). ‘Constructivism as a referent for teaching and learning.’ In: TOBIN, K. (Ed) The Practice of Constructivism in Science Education. Washington, DC: AAAS, pp. 3–22.

TSAI, C.-C. (1996a). The interrelationships between junior high school students’ scien-tiŽ c epistemological beliefs, learning environment preferences and their cognitive

structure outcomes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teachers’ College, Columbia University, New York.

TSAI, C.-C. (1996b). ‘The “qualitative” differences in problem-solving procedures and thinking structures between science and nonscience majors’,School Science and Math-ematics,96, 283–9.

TSAI, C.-C. (1997). The interplay between scientiŽ c epistemological beliefs and prefer-ences for constructivist learning environments of Taiwanese eighth-graders. Paper presented at the Fourth International Seminar ‘From Misconceptions to Constructed Understanding’, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, June. [On-line] available at: http: //www2.ucsc.edu/mlrg/proc4abstracts.html

TSAI, C.-C. (1998a). ‘An analysis of Taiwanese eighth-graders’ science achievement, scientiŽ c epistemological beliefs and cognitive structure outcomes after learning basic atomic theory’,International Journal of Science Education,20, 413–25.

TSAI, C.-C. (1998b). ‘An analysis of scientiŽ c epistemological beliefs and learning orien-tations of Taiwanese eighth-graders’,Science Education,82, 473–89.

TSAI, C.-C. (1998c). ‘Science learning and constructivism’,Curriculum and Teaching,13,

31–52.

TSAI, C.-C. (1999a). ‘ “Laboratory exercises help me memorize the scientiŽ c truths”: a study of eighth-graders’ scientiŽ c epistemological views and learning in laboratory activities’,Science Education,83, 654–74.

TSAI, C.-C. (1999b). ‘Content analysis of Taiwanese 14-year-olds’ information process-ing operations shown in cognitive structures followprocess-ing physics instruction, with relations to science attainment and scientiŽ c epistemological beliefs’, Research in Science and Technological Education,17, 125–37.

TSAI, C.-C. (1999c). Female tenth-graders’ cognitive structure outcomes: the effects of STS instruction and scientiŽ c epistemological beliefs. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, Mass., USA, March.

TSAI, C.-C. (1999d). ‘The progression toward constructivist epistemological views of science: a case study of the STS instruction of Taiwanese high school female students’, International Journal of Science Education.

TYSON, L. M., VENVILLE, G. Y., HARRISON, A. G. and TREAGUST, D. F. (1997). ‘A multidimensional framework for interpreting conceptual change events in the classroom’,Science Education,81, 387–404.

WANDERSEE, J. H. (1992). ‘The historicality of cognition: implications for science education research’,Journal of Research in Science Teaching,29, 423–34.

WANDERSEE, J. H., MINTZES, J. J. and NOVAK, J. D. (1994). ‘Research on alterna-tive conceptions in science.’ In: GABEL, D. L. (Ed) Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning. New York: Macmillan, pp. 177–210.

YAGER, R. E. (1995). ‘Constructivism and the learning of science.’ In: GLYNN, S. M. and DUIT, R. (Eds) Learning Science in the Schools: Research Reforming Practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 35–58.

Epistemological beliefs and constructivism 205