32
This article was downloaded by: [Van Pelt and Opie Library] On: 17 October 2014, At: 13:42 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Cognition and Instruction Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hcgi20 Exploring Similarities and Differences in Personal Epistemologies of U.S. and German Elementary School Teachers Florian C. Feucht a & Lisa D. Bendixen b a The University of Toledo , b The University of Nevada , Las Vegas Published online: 31 Dec 2009. To cite this article: Florian C. Feucht & Lisa D. Bendixen (2010) Exploring Similarities and Differences in Personal Epistemologies of U.S. and German Elementary School Teachers, Cognition and Instruction, 28:1, 39-69, DOI: 10.1080/07370000903430558 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07370000903430558 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 or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. 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

Exploring Similarities and Differences in Personal Epistemologies of U.S. and German Elementary School Teachers

  • Upload
    lisa-d

  • View
    213

  • Download
    1

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

This article was downloaded by: [Van Pelt and Opie Library]On: 17 October 2014, At: 13:42Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Cognition and InstructionPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hcgi20

Exploring Similarities and Differencesin Personal Epistemologies of U.S. andGerman Elementary School TeachersFlorian C. Feucht a & Lisa D. Bendixen ba The University of Toledo ,b The University of Nevada , Las VegasPublished online: 31 Dec 2009.

To cite this article: Florian C. Feucht & Lisa D. Bendixen (2010) Exploring Similarities and Differencesin Personal Epistemologies of U.S. and German Elementary School Teachers, Cognition and Instruction,28:1, 39-69, DOI: 10.1080/07370000903430558

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07370000903430558

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 tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand 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 Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial 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

COGNITION AND INSTRUCTION, 28(1), 39–69, 2010Copyright C© Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0737-0008 print / 1532-690X onlineDOI: 10.1080/07370000903430558

Exploring Similarities and Differences in PersonalEpistemologies of U.S. and German Elementary School

Teachers

Florian C. FeuchtThe University of Toledo

Lisa D. BendixenThe University of Nevada, Las Vegas

The current study examines the personal epistemology of fourth-grade elementary school teachersfrom Germany (n = 10) and the United States (n = 10) to gain a more nuanced understanding ofteachers’ beliefs about knowledge and knowing through a cross-cultural lens. Analyses of semi-structured interviews reveal similarities and differences in the statements of teachers. Four themesare identified: The majority of teachers believed that (a) knowing is uncertain and (b) knowledgehas domain-specific qualities; (c) U.S. teachers seemed to view knowledge more as being embeddedwithin their community, while (d) German teachers discussed more internal knowledge sources.The general discussion includes possible cross-cultural explanations for these four emerging themesand points tentatively to developmental issues stemming from uncertainty beliefs. Conceptual andeducational implications are discussed and suggestions for future research are given.

Currently, our understanding of the cross-cultural aspects of personal epistemology (i.e., beliefsabout the nature of knowledge and knowing) is limited, and a number of researchers have called formore studies to contribute to this important area of inquiry (Chan & Elliott, 2004; Hofer & Pintrich,2002; Wong, Khine, & Sing, 2008). Most of the theoretical and empirical work on personalepistemology stems from U.S. samples of university students, but this potentially oversimplifiedview of the construct is now being called into question (Gottlieb, 2007; Hofer, 2008), and morerecent work has begun to investigate students’ and teachers’ personal epistemology from otherWestern and Eastern cultures (e.g., Buehl, 2008; Chan & Elliott, 2004; Qian & Pan, 2002).Comparisons between Western cultures of elementary school teachers’ personal epistemologyhave received very little theoretical or empirical attention. The purpose of the current study isto explore and clarify some of the similarities and differences in the personal epistemology ofelementary school teachers from Germany and the United States. We believe this can lead to amore nuanced understanding of teachers’ beliefs about knowledge and knowing and can yield

Correspondence should be addressed to Florian C. Feucht, Department of Educational Foundations and Leadership,The University of Toledo, 2801 W. Bancroft Street, Toledo, OH 43606. E-mail: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

Pel

t and

Opi

e L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:42

17

Oct

ober

201

4

40 FEUCHT AND BENDIXEN

important implications for classroom practice, student learning, and teacher education/trainingprograms (Bendixen & Feucht, 2010; Haerle & Bendixen, 2008).

PERSONAL EPISTEMOLOGY

In general, four theoretical frameworks can be identified in the literature on personal epistemology.They conceptualize personal epistemology as: (a) a development of epistemological thinking (e.g.,Baxter Magolda, 1992; Kuhn, 1991; Perry, 1970); (b) epistemological beliefs (e.g., Schommer,1990); (c) epistemological theories (e.g., Hofer & Pintrich, 1997); or (d) epistemological resources(e.g., Hammer & Elby, 2002).

In an effort to integrate these conceptual frameworks, Hofer and colleagues (Hofer, 2001;Hofer & Pintrich, 1997) define personal epistemology as four identifiable, interrelated dimensionsthat develop in reasonable, predictable directions. The first two dimensions concern the natureof knowledge in terms of: (a) the certainty of knowledge (i.e., the stability of knowledge andthe strength of the supporting evidence) and (b) the simplicity of knowledge (i.e., the relativeconnectedness of knowledge). The third and fourth dimensions describe the nature of knowingand pertain to: (c) the justification of knowledge (i.e., the procedures to evaluate and warrantknowledge claims) and (d) the source of knowledge (i.e., where knowledge resides; internallyand/or externally).

Personal epistemology has been a focal point of educational research in North America overthe last forty years (for a review, see Hofer & Pintrich, 1997). Current issues in the field concernthe domain-specificity and generality of personal epistemology and its connectedness to beliefsabout teaching and learning (e.g., Muis, Bendixen, & Haerle, 2006; Schommer-Aikins, Duell, &Hutter, 2005; Schraw & Olafson, 2002).

There is a growing consensus that epistemological thinking matters in our everyday lives(Kuhn & Weinstock, 2002; Yang & Tsai, 2010). In earlier levels of epistemic development,individuals view knowledge as more objective, simple, and dichotomous (i.e., absolutism) orperceive knowledge as increasingly subjective, complex, and relativistic (i.e., multiplism) (Hofer& Pintrich, 1997; King & Kitchener, 1994; Kuhn, Cheney, & Weinstock, 2000). Later, evalua-tivistic thinking integrates both subjective and objective views of knowledge and considers itscomplexity and uncertainty in relation to its context (Kuhn & Weinstock, 2002).

In terms of educational implications, epistemological beliefs have been found to be relatedto a variety of factors including reasoning skills (Chandler, Boyes, & Ball, 1990), strategy use(Schommer, Crouse, & Rhodes, 1992), cognitive processing (Kardash & Howell, 2000), andconceptual change (Qian & Alvermann, 2000). Currently within the field, there is a great deal ofinterest in exploring the personal epistemology of teachers and the relation to classroom practice(e.g., Bendixen & Feucht, 2010; Patrick & Pintrich, 2001; Schraw & Olafson, 2002).

TEACHERS’ PERSONAL EPISTEMOLOGY

A small body of theory and research on the personal epistemology of teachers has been establishedin the last few years (Schraw & Olafson, 2002). The literature discussed in this section concernselementary and secondary school teachers as well as preservice teachers.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

Pel

t and

Opi

e L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:42

17

Oct

ober

201

4

TEACHERS’ PERSONAL EPISTEMOLOGY 41

The potential influence of teachers’ personal epistemology on their teaching practices and stu-dents’ personal epistemologies has been described in the following theoretical frameworks. Hofer(2001) proposes that the epistemological theories of teachers impact their choice of classroomtasks and pedagogical practices. Students then interpret these classroom activities through theirown epistemic lenses, and alterations in their personal theories might occur accordingly. Feucht(2008; 2010) theorizes in the Educational Model for Personal Epistemology that the componentsof epistemic climate include: (a) teachers’ personal epistemology, (b) the underlying epistemicmessages of instruction, (c) the epistemic messages of educational materials (e.g., curriculum andschoolbooks), and (d) students’ personal epistemology. These four components are reciprocallyconnected and can be used by teachers to advance students’ personal epistemology and to fosterevaluativistic thinking in their classrooms. Finally, Bendixen and Rule (2004) propose that thepersonal epistemologies of students, peers, and teachers influence each other within and beyondthe classroom context. This impact, referred to as reciprocal causation, can play an importantrole in determining society-wide changes in personal epistemology and its development such aschanges taking place at the student/teacher level (e.g., students encouraged to debate science the-ory) impacting the broader classroom climate that could, in turn, influence the school community(e.g., science curriculum becoming more evidence-based). Although more empirical work needsto be done, essentially, all three frameworks propose that teachers’ personal epistemology has astrong impact on their classroom practice and on students’ personal epistemology.

Teachers’ epistemological worldviews have been reviewed extensively by Schraw and Olafson(2002). Their definition of epistemological worldview is broader than the definition of personalepistemology previously described (i.e., Hofer, 2001). Teachers’ worldviews are defined as col-lective attitudes of individuals about the nature and learning of knowledge. Schraw and Olafsondescribe three different worldviews of teachers (i.e., realist, relativist, and contextualist) and howthey may influence different choices about curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment: (1) Teacherswith a realist worldview assume that existing knowledge is objective, relatively unchanging, andestablished by experts. They believe that knowledge is best acquired through transmission, pur-sue an active teaching role while students are perceived as passive recipients, and acknowledgethe existing curricula and school books as authorities. (2) In contrast, relativist teachers assumethat knowledge is subjective and subject to change. They value individual differences in theirstudents’ knowledge and facilitate learning environments in which students actively constructtheir own knowledge. (3) Finally, contextualist teachers view knowledge as a shared constructthat is context-dependent and tentative (i.e., similar to evaluativistic thinking). They under-stand the role of the teacher to be a facilitator in the learning environment and they encourage stu-dents to share and collaboratively construct knowledge. These teachers focus on the applicationof their students’ knowledge and the process of learning.

A small number of studies have investigated the connectedness of preservice teachers’ epis-temic beliefs with their teaching beliefs (Hofer, 2001; Sinatra & Kardash, 2004; White, 2000). Toour knowledge only one study exists that explored the influence of teachers’ personal epistemol-ogy on their classroom practice and students’ personal epistemology. Johnston, Woodside-Jiron,and Day (2001) applied a longitudinal case study design that combined teacher and student inter-views and extensive classroom observations. This study demonstrated how the different personalepistemologies of two elementary school teachers influenced their English instruction and theirstudents’ beliefs about knowledge and knowing in this particular school subject. Despite the em-pirically verified influence of epistemic beliefs on teaching, care needs to be taken not to assume

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

Pel

t and

Opi

e L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:42

17

Oct

ober

201

4

42 FEUCHT AND BENDIXEN

that teacher beliefs automatically translate into actual instructional practice. Several studies havedemonstrated that teacher beliefs—epistemological or otherwise—professed during interviewsmight not align with their practice in their classrooms (Cohen, 1990; Ruiz-Primo, Shavelson,Hamilton, & Klein, 2002; Tobin & McRobbie, 1997). Clearly more empirical work is necessaryto further our understanding on the often-assumed consequential influence of teachers’ personalepistemology on their classroom teaching and students’ personal epistemology.

With respect to teacher education and development, theoretical and empirical work addresseshow epistemic beliefs in teachers may affect their openness toward new pedagogical alternativesand their potential to advance through intervention programs. Patrick and Pintrich (2001) pro-pose that teachers’ willingness to undergo educational reform, which is to change their teachingpractices, is highly dependent on their personal epistemology. They argue that teachers withmore naive personal epistemologies (i.e., realists) are less likely to accept educational reform.For example, teachers who believe that knowledge is certain and simple may be less likely to ac-knowledge new developments in the field of learning and instruction (see certainty and simplicityof knowledge; Hofer & Pintrich, 1997). Additionally, preservice and novice teachers may relyinitially on their own experiences as school students rather than ground their teaching practiceson justified evidence and on their own processes of comparing and contrasting alternative ped-agogical knowledge (see justification and source of knowledge; Hofer & Pintich, 1997). Thus,Patrick and Pintrich (2001) make a strong case for the advancement of the personal epistemolo-gies of preservice and novice teachers to promote their interest in pedagogical alternatives andacceptance of educational reform.

Two U.S. studies investigated the possibility of promoting change in teachers’ epistemic be-liefs through intervention. Howard, McGee, Schwartz, and Purcell (2000) used constructivistteaching approaches to alter the personal epistemology of inservice teachers (n = 41), whileGill, Ashton, and Algina (2004) used refutational texts to promote constructivist/relativist beliefstoward mathematics education in preservice teachers (n = 161). Both studies administered varia-tions of Schommer-Aikins’ Epistemological Belief Questionnaire (Schommer, 1990) among othermeasures to investigate the impact of their epistemic interventions. Gill et al. (2004) compareda control with their intervention group and found notable belief advancement in the preserviceteachers who participated in the intervention. Furthermore, their study supported Patrick andPintrich’s (2001) claim that preservice teachers who believe that knowledge is simple and certainare less likely to change their epistemic beliefs. Howard et al. (2000) also seemed to be able tofoster epistemic development in the teachers they studied; unfortunately, the intervention’s effectwas not compared to a control group.

In summary, the personal epistemologies of teachers, their impact on teaching beliefs, andtheir potential for change have been described in a small but important body of theoreticaland empirical work in the United States. Cross-cultural work, however, whether theoretical orempirical, is greatly lacking in the research literature on teachers’ personal epistemology (Haerle& Bendixen, 2008).

CROSS-CULTURAL RESEARCH ON TEACHERS’ PERSONALEPISTEMOLOGY

It is generally assumed that epistemological beliefs are socially constructed and, therefore, cultureplays an important role in the development of epistemological beliefs (Bendixen & Rule, 2004;

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

Pel

t and

Opi

e L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:42

17

Oct

ober

201

4

TEACHERS’ PERSONAL EPISTEMOLOGY 43

Haerle & Bendixen, 2008; Hofer & Pintrich, 1997; Pintrich, 2002; Qian & Pan, 2002; Vygotsky,1978). As we have shown, the body of theory and research associated with personal epistemologyhas mainly focused on North American samples of older adolescents and college-aged students(e.g., Hofer, 2000; King & Kitchener, 1994; Perry, 1970; Schommer, 1990). A small numberof studies have begun to address the need for research across cultures to investigate similaritiesand differences in the epistemological beliefs of students and teachers and the more generaleducational implications that proceed from these findings (Chan & Elliott, 2004; Hofer & Pintrich,1997).

The cross-cultural research that does exist in the field focuses mainly on the dimensions ofepistemological beliefs (Schommer, 1990), such as certainty of knowledge and source of knowing,and how they differ in North American and non-Western cultures (e.g., China, Hong Kong, Japan,and Taiwan) (Haerle & Bendixen, 2008; Chan & Elliott, 2004). For example, it is hypothesizedthat in Asian school cultures there is an emphasis on collectivism, acceptance of consensus,respecting authority, and the importance of effort in academic achievement (Chan & Elliott, 2004;Qian & Pan, 2002). In contrast, North American values of democracy, independent thinking, andindividualism influence beliefs about knowledge and knowing (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997). Differentcultural patterns have been detected in students’ and teachers’ personal epistemologies. Forexample, on a rough continuum ranging from less advanced to more advanced beliefs about thesource of knowledge, teachers and students in Asia tended to believe more in external, authoritativesources such as experts (Chan & Elliot, 2000; Lin, 2001; Qian & Pan, 2002; Tsai, 2002), whiletheir North American and Australian counterparts relied on a combination of external and internalknowledge sources (e.g., Brownlee, Purdie, & Boulton-Lewis, 2001; Schraw & Olafson, 2002;White, 2000).

One promising avenue for personal epistemology research is to examine more closely thesimilarities and distinctions among Western cultures. In response to this need, the current studyaims to examine how German and U.S. elementary school teachers concur and differ in terms oftheir personal epistemology.

SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES IN GERMAN AND U.S. ELEMENTARYTEACHERS AND EDUCATION

To explore personal epistemology through a cross-cultural lens, Haerle and Bendixen (2008)provide a comparison of German and U.S. elementary school cultures. This comparison is basedon both theoretical and empirical work and offers crucial information regarding the similaritiesand contrasts between these cultures. A summary of these findings is given here to providebackground for the current study. The authors note that their comparison is not exhaustive, nordoes it completely cover the current educational debates and changes occurring in both cultures.

Similarities in Goals and Traditions

The elementary school systems in Germany and the United States share aspects of their educa-tional goals and traditions. One commonality is the aim to ensure the cultural identity of eachsociety and to maintain an educated citizenry in future generations (Haerle & Bendixen, 2008).This is reflected in the goal to provide all students with a basic literacy and numeracy and to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

Pel

t and

Opi

e L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:42

17

Oct

ober

201

4

44 FEUCHT AND BENDIXEN

establish foundations in science, geography, history, and other social sciences (Weinreich, 1963).Another shared educational goal is to ensure and advance equality in and through education. Botheducational systems value academic equality and social justice, and aim to guide children towarddemocratic citizenship (Purves, 1988; Whitebread, 2000).

Differences in Goals and Traditions

According to Gundem and Hopmann (1998) there are two basic models of Western educationand its notion of learning and instruction: (a) the Anglo-Saxon (i.e., North American) traditionof curriculum studies, or educational psychology and (b) the German (or Continental European)tradition of Didaktik. Didaktik and U.S. curriculum studies are acknowledged by some to bevery different views and remain “embedded in very different practical, cultural, and structuralcontexts. They are very different intellectual systems developed out of very different startingpoints, and seek to do very different kinds of intellectual and practical work” (Westbury, 1998,p. 48). Differences arise in their interpretations of the core of teaching practice, in the role of theteacher in the educational setting, and the approaches to teacher training.

The origins of the German educational tradition of Didaktik can be traced back to the sixteenthcentury. The term Didaktik has many meanings and is difficult to translate. It characterizes,in English, “the teaching-studying-learning process” (Kansanen, 2002, p. 430). In Germany,Didaktik and its components—the content, the learner, and the teacher—are commonly presentedin the form of a triangle (Hopmann & Riquarts, 1995). Although the triangle is an abstractconcept, its expressed reciprocal relations are always considered in some practical context suchas the Didaktik of mathematics. Didaktik is traditionally an essential part in the teaching of everyschool subject or discipline (Kansanen, 2002).

With respect to teacher education, Didaktik, according to Westbury (1998), is much moresensitive to personal variance among teachers (as compared to U.S. conceptions of education),allowing them more intellectual and professional freedom to think and accomplish their tasks.Teachers are expected to have their own teaching philosophies and make their own decisionsabout implementing them, to have Didaktik of their own (Kansanen, 2003).

Although in the United States there is much debate on the best approach to education andreform efforts abound, traditional views can be identified that characterize the U.S. approach toeducation. For example, Kauchak, Eggen, and Carter (2002) identify two major principles thatundergird the educational orientation of the United States: (a) preeminence of the individual,and (b) rational thought and respect for objective science and the scientific method. In addition,“part of the American dream is the ‘common school’ an institution that would serve all thechildren of all the people” (Jarolimek, Foster, & Kellough, 2005, p. 4). This perspective holdsthat there is a critical core of information that exists that all people should possess (McCaslin &Good, 1996; Ornstein & Hunkins, 2004). While there are clear limitations to overgeneralizingthe aforementioned views, they offer a starting point for further investigation.

With respect to teacher training, there is a set of knowledge and skills that teachers mustpossess to be effective educators, such as classroom management, lesson preparation, and settingand assessing objectives, using various modes of teaching, selecting and implementing learningactivities, and evaluating student learning (Brophy & Good, 1986; Jarolimek & Foster, 1985).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

Pel

t and

Opi

e L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:42

17

Oct

ober

201

4

TEACHERS’ PERSONAL EPISTEMOLOGY 45

According to Westbury’s (1998) critical analysis of U.S. education (as compared to GermanDidaktik) the work of the teacher is “explicitly directed by an authoritative agency which has (sic)as part of its larger program a curriculum containing both statements and aim, prescribed content(and in the American case, textbooks), and methods of teaching which teachers are expectedto ‘implement’“ (p. 48). In short, U.S. teachers are more strictly controlled by educationaladministrators and by the expertise of scholars and scientists.

The following section focuses on the practical context of elementary education, and practicalsimilarities and differences between U.S. and German elementary schools are discussed (foradditional details see Haerle and Bendixen, 2008).

Similarities in the Practical Context

U.S. and German elementary schools are similar in a number of ways. Elementary school edu-cation is compulsory. Around six years of age children are enrolled in elementary schools andplaced in classes of 18 to 30 students with one, typically female, teacher (Ashwill, 1999; Kauchaket al., 2002). Grading in elementary schools is generally criterion-referenced and consists of de-velopmental checklists and narratives until children are in at least third grade and then numericalmarks/letter grades become more prevalent (Lake & Kafka, 1996). Children progress throughadvancing classes until they complete their elementary education. Typically, elementary schoolsare neighborhood-based and are located in self-contained buildings. They are organized in, andadministratively overseen by, school districts that answer to their state department of education.In Germany and the United States each state has the exclusive right to determine its education(e.g., curriculum, educational standards, and administration) and is accountable for its successfulimplementation. In this undertaking the education systems are financially supported through theirregional and state government and provided with educational recommendations by their federalgovernments (Ashwill, 1999; Kauchak et al., 2002).

Differences in the Practical Context

U.S. and German elementary education also differ in terms of context. The German educationalsystem provides different paths for students based on individual ability. Children enter the Grund-schule (i.e., elementary school) at age six and remain together through fourth grade. Looping,or students remaining with their same teacher across two or more grade levels, is a commonpractice. In most states children enter one of several school forms at the lower secondary level:Hauptschule (grades 5–9; low ability; fulfills states minimum requirements and prepares studentsfor subsequent vocational/trades apprenticeship programs, such as butcher, carpenter, hairstylist,etc.), Realschule (grades 5–10; medium ability; prepares students for career apprenticeships andrequires more language, math skills, and one foreign language, such as bank tellers, electricians,sales clerks, etc.), and Gymnasium (grades 5–13; high ability; includes college and universitypreparation programs with specialized programs such as math and physical sciences, languages,arts, and music) (Ashwill, 1999). Generally, students in Germany are more homogeneous in termsof their socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and ability levels as compared to students in the United

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

Pel

t and

Opi

e L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:42

17

Oct

ober

201

4

46 FEUCHT AND BENDIXEN

States. They attend a relatively short school day, 12 months out of the year (with short breaksthroughout) and student violence and weapons are virtually unheard of (Ashwill, 1999). Schoolfor students revolves around academic activities with few opportunities for social interaction(Noak, 1999).

With respect to teacher education, the training of elementary school teachers in Ger-many consists of four academic years of training at a university (first state exam admin-istered at this time) followed by two years of employment as an apprentice teacher underthe continuous tutelage of a mentor teacher (second state exam administered at this time)(Ashwill, 1999; Noak, 1999). “Teachers in Germany are relatively better paid and respectedthan their American colleagues. Teachers are viewed as civil servants with tenure” (Noak, 1999,p. 774).

In the United States, public elementary schools have taken on many functions beyond reading,writing, and arithmetic. Some of the additional functions include: (a) a “melting-pot socialization”in which a blending of diverse ethnicities and cultures is attempted, (b) recreation and avocation,(c) health and safety education, and (d) food service and student transportation. None of thesefunctions or services is provided in German schools (Noack, 1999). Along with extracurricularactivities, social interaction is generally encouraged among students. Students in U.S. publicelementary schools are quite diverse in terms of their socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and learningability. Inclusion by law is an important aspect of many public schools. Poverty and at-riskstudents are pervasive challenges in U.S. schools (Slavin, Karweit, & Madden, 1989). Curriculumand standards in the United States are heavily influenced by federal, state, and district entities(Downing & Andrea, 1996).

With respect to teacher education, the training of elementary teachers in the United Statesgenerally consists of four years of university training (this usually includes one year of stu-dent teaching). There is some debate as to whether or not teachers should be viewed as true“professionals.” Reasons against this include the perception that teacher education admission re-quirements are low, the quality of the coursework for professional education is low, and teacherslack professional autonomy (Kauchak et al., 2002).

Although these practical differences can be identified between the school systems, weargue that in elementary education U.S. and German schools share many similarities andare more alike at the elementary level than at any other level of education (i.e., middleschool and/or high school) (Haerle & Bendixen, 2008). The varying educational goals andtraditions within Germany and the United States provide a context for the current studyand may play a role in the personal epistemology of the elementary school teachers whoparticipated.

PURPOSE AND RATIONALE

We aim to shed light on the epistemological beliefs of inservice teachers in German and U.S.fourth-grade classrooms. What are their personal epistemologies? How do these personal epis-temologies concur and/or differ? Can a cross-cultural comparison such as this provide valuableinsight into teachers’ beliefs about the nature of knowledge, knowing, and teaching?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

Pel

t and

Opi

e L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:42

17

Oct

ober

201

4

TEACHERS’ PERSONAL EPISTEMOLOGY 47

METHOD

Participants

We interviewed 20 elementary school teachers in the United States and Germany. All were eitherteaching fourth-grade at the time of the interviews or had taught fourth grade in the recent past.The teachers were trained for a minimum of four years at the university level, were Caucasian,and all worked in lower- to middle-level socioeconomic communities.

The 10 German teachers (9 females, 1 male; age range: 28–64 years) were sampled from 6different elementary schools in a small city in an area of North Germany (population in 2007= 158,341). The 10 U.S. teachers (9 females, 1 male; age range: 27–65 years) were sampledfrom one elementary school in a small town in the rural Midwest (population in 2007 = 1,867).Although the U.S. teachers taught in a rural setting, they received their teaching degrees fromuniversities in urban settings. We discuss explicitly the possible confounding that the U.S. andGerman teachers taught in different educational contexts (i.e., more rural vs. more urban) in alater section of the article (i.e., Discussion).

Materials

Interview Questions. Our interview questions were derived from pertinent issues in thefield of personal epistemology revolving around the nature and acquisition of knowledge (e.g.,Hofer, 2001; Schommer, 1990; Schraw & Olafson, 2002). The following seven questions werepart of the interview protocol:

1. Could you explain to me what knowledge and knowing is?2. Could you tell me what you know? (not analyzed)3. Could you explain to me how you got to know ? (School-subject-related (e.g.,

reading), chosen from answers to Question 2)4. Could you explain to me how you got to know ? (Not school-subject-related (e.g.,

making a bed), chosen from answers to Question 2)5. Could you explain to me where knowledge comes from?6. How can you check knowledge?7. How do you think your beliefs about knowledge, what we talked about so far, impact

your teaching? (U.S. teachers only; not analyzed)

Question 2 and 7 were excluded from the data analyses because question 2 did not revealimportant data and question 7 was only posed to the U.S. teachers.

Software. We used ATLAS.ti V5.0 as a tool to support our data analysis. ATLAS.ti wasdeveloped for the qualitative analysis of large bodies of textual, graphical, audio, and video data.It features two levels of data analysis: (1) The coding level permits researchers to develop codingschemes, to select quotations in the material, and to assign these quotations to the coding schemes;

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

Pel

t and

Opi

e L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:42

17

Oct

ober

201

4

48 FEUCHT AND BENDIXEN

and (2) The conceptual level facilitates researchers to further theorize their results by buildingnetwork views/concept maps and writing memos that describe emerging theories (Muhr, 2004).

Procedure

We conducted semi-structured interviews with all participants. This technique combines a struc-tured interview protocol with the flexibility to ask ad hoc questions (i.e., subsequent questions thatemerge during the interview) (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982; Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2000). Adhoc questions were posed to interviewees to verify and/or elaborate on aspects of their answers(see the Appendix for a transcript excerpt including an interview question and ad hoc questions).The total interview time was approximately 45–75 minutes for each participant. Using the sameprotocol, the German teachers were interviewed on two separate occasions and the U.S. teacherson one. All interviews were recorded with a digital camera and transcribed. The German interviewtranscripts were translated into English by the first author. An external native speaking Germanwho was fluent in English verified this translation.

Analyses

Methodological Background. We used the method of qualitative content analysis(Mayring, 2002), which evolved from the classical, more quantitative method of content analysis(Kohlbacher, 2005; Titscher, Meyer, Wodak, & Vetter, 2000). The more quantitative content anal-ysis has been criticized for its inability to account for context, underlying themes, and distinctionsamong individual cases/participants (Ritsert, 1972). Qualitative content analysis aims to over-come these shortcomings by applying a systematic, theory-guided approach to text analysis usinginductive coding schemes. This method, therefore, synthesizes two methodological principles:(a) openness to context, themes, and individual variation and (b) theory-guided investigation(Glaeser & Laudel, 1999). Mayring’s approach is guided by a sequential model that encompassesthree distinct analytical procedures (Kohlbacher, 2005; Mayring, 2002):

1. The summary aims to reduce the material into a manageable corpus that reflects the essen-tial content of the original material. In this process the material of each case/participantis paraphrased and generalized.

2. The explication attempts to explain, clarify, and further reduce the material into ex-plicatory paraphrases. In this theory-guided procedure, the material is cut and sortedinto meaningful categories that stem from the research/interview questions or lexico-grammatical definitions. The explicatory paraphrases account for the context within andacross the cases/participants. Categories are re-examined and revised, if necessary.

3. The open procedure of structuring describes the selection and coding of quotationsthroughout the explicatory paraphrases. Codes are used to compare and contrast acrosscases/participants in search of underlying themes and possible distinctions amongcases/participants. Codes are re-examined and revised, if necessary. The results of thesethree analytical procedures are category descriptions/definitions, themes, and/or similar-ities and differences among cases/participants.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

Pel

t and

Opi

e L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:42

17

Oct

ober

201

4

TEACHERS’ PERSONAL EPISTEMOLOGY 49

Process of Data Analysis. In our data analysis we applied all three of the aforelisted pro-cedures. First, we uploaded all 20 transcripts into ATLAS.ti. Following the summary procedure,we paraphrased and generalized the material for each participant. These summaries were writtenand saved as memos, a text editor feature in Atlas.ti.

In the explication procedure, we further reduced the summaries into explicatory paraphrases.We identified the following a priori categories in the answers to our interview questions: (1)Definition of Knowledge, (2) Learning of Knowledge, (3) Justification of Knowledge, and (4)Origin of Knowledge (i.e., the category scheme). These four categories were used to sort andfurther reduce the summaries. We used the coding feature in ATLAS.ti to assign sections withinthe summaries to the category scheme. This allowed us to systematically generate explicatoryparaphrases.

In the third procedure of structuring we developed an inductive coding scheme to analyze theexplicatory paraphrases. This coding scheme was used to search for emerging themes among theparticipants. It was built in ATLAS.ti following an iterative process of application and revision,and contained 17 codes and 20 subcodes clustering around the four categories. The codes andsubcodes are described more fully in the following Results section. Table 1 was generated toprovide a systematic overview of the coding scheme, code occurrence, and example quotations.The structure and hierarchy of the scheme is listed in the left columns. The columns in themiddle field illustrate which codes and subcodes were identified in the interview transcripts.This information is provided on the individual level and the group level. Table 1 can be used tocompare and contrast the epistemic beliefs of (a) individual teachers (e.g., G1 versus G9 versusUS5) and (b) within and across the groups (i.e., U.S. Total versus German Total). The columnto the far right provides sample quotes for the codes listed in the corresponding left columns toexemplify teacher statements that were assigned to a particular code.

In a subsequent analysis, teachers’ uncertainty beliefs were further analyzed. Specifically,we revisited statements in the interviews that were assigned to uncertainty codes and codedaccording to Kuhn’s (Kuhn et al., 2000; Kuhn & Weinstock, 2002) three levels of epistemicdevelopment: (a) absolutism (i.e., knowledge is more objective, simple, and dichotomous), (b)multiplism (i.e., knowledge is increasingly subjective complex, and relative), and (c) evalua-tivism (i.e., knowledge is both subjective and objective, complex, and context dependent) (Kuhnet al., 2000). The purpose was not to classify teachers as strictly absolutists, multiplists, and/orevaluativists, but to apply the framework to further understand teacher’s uncertainty beliefs aboutknowledge.

Inter-Rater Reliability. To verify the reliability of our coding scheme and to add to thevalidity of our overall findings, we assessed the inter-rater reliability of the category and codingschemes applied at the most crucial step of the data analyses (i.e., the explication procedure) usingCohen’s kappa coefficient (1960). This statistical measure of inter-rater reliability is generallythought to be a more robust measure than simple percent agreement calculation since κ takes intoaccount the agreement occurring by chance. Cohen’s kappa measures the agreement between tworaters who each classify quotations into mutually exclusive categories/codes (i.e., good agreementκ = 0.61–0.80; very good agreement κ = 0.81–1.00).

In this process, a second, external rater was randomly assigned 40% of the data withoutknowing the nationality of the teachers and a high level of inter-rater reliability of Cohen’s

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

Pel

t and

Opi

e L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:42

17

Oct

ober

201

4

TAB

LE1

Cod

eH

iera

rchy

,Cod

eO

ccur

renc

eac

ross

Par

ticip

ants

,and

Exa

mpl

eQ

uota

tions

Ger

man

part

icip

ants

US

part

icip

ants

Cat

egor

ies

Cod

es/S

ubco

des

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

G6

G7

G8

G9

G10

GTo

tal

US1

US2

US3

US4

US5

US6

US7

US8

US9

US1

0U

STo

tal

Tota

lsE

xam

ple

quot

atio

ns

1D

efini

tion

ofkn

owle

dge

(DK

)1:

DK

:Fac

ts&

Skill

s&

Exe

rper

ienc

es

XX

XX

XX

XX

8X

XX

XX

816

Itis

the

conc

epts

and

the

skill

sth

atyo

u’ve

gath

ered

.1:

DK

:Lea

rnin

g&

Mem

oriz

atio

nX

XX

XX

XX

7X

XX

XX

X8

15E

very

thin

gth

atha

sbe

enin

tern

aliz

edan

dm

emor

ized

.1:

DK

:Pro

cess

Of

App

licat

ion

XX

XX

4X

XX

48

Itis

just

ever

ythi

ngth

atyo

ukn

owth

atyo

uca

nap

ply

tolif

e.1:

DK

:Abs

trac

t&

Inte

rnal

Sour

ces

(DK

:AI)

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

100

10K

now

ledg

e(.

..)

stem

sin

tuiti

vely

from

my

pers

onal

ity.

1:D

K:A

I:Pe

rson

alC

ateg

orie

sX

XX

XX

XX

X8

08

0ne

can

know

thin

gsin

the

area

sof

hum

aniti

es,s

cien

ce(.

..).

1:D

K:C

omm

unal

&E

nvir

onm

enta

l0

XX

XX

XX

XX

1010

Kno

wle

dge

isun

ders

tand

ing

your

wor

ldar

ound

you.

2L

earn

ing

ofkn

owle

dge

(LK

)2:

LK

:Str

ateg

ies

(LK

:St)

2:L

K:S

t:Mak

ing

Exp

erie

nces

XX

XX

4X

X2

6I

lear

ned

abou

trea

ding

thro

ugh

my

own

expe

rien

ces.

2:L

K:S

t:O

bser

ving

XX

2X

X2

4K

now

ledg

eco

mes

from

(...

)w

atch

ing

othe

rs.

2:L

K:S

t:Reh

ears

ing/

Prac

ticin

gX

XX

XX

XX

7X

XX

XX

XX

X8

15Fr

ompr

actic

ean

dtr

ying

thin

gs.

2:L

K:S

t:Tri

al&

Err

orX

XX

XX

X6

XX

XX

410

Oh.

....i

twas

adi

sast

rous

first

atte

mpt

.2:

LK

:St:M

akin

gC

onne

ctio

ns/

Tra

nsfe

r

XX

XX

X5

XX

X3

8I

thin

kpa

rent

ing

skill

sm

ayha

vepl

ayed

anim

port

antp

art.

50

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

Pel

t and

Opi

e L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:42

17

Oct

ober

201

4

2:L

K:S

t:Lis

teni

ngTo

Intu

ition

/Fe

elin

g

XX

X3

03

One

has

agu

tfee

ling

for

it.

2:L

K:S

t:Rea

ding

XX

XX

XX

XX

8X

XX

XX

513

SoI

wou

ldre

adar

ticle

san

dbo

oks.

2:L

K:S

t:Ask

ing/

Con

vers

atio

nX

XX

XX

XX

7X

XX

X4

11I

ask

peop

leI

can

trus

t.

2:L

K:S

t:Bei

ngPa

rtO

fC

omm

unity

XX

XX

44

It’s

the

way

you

grew

upw

ithm

any

peop

lecl

ose

toyo

u.2:

LK

:St:

Col

labo

ratio

nX

XX

3X

XX

XX

58

Oth

erte

ache

rshe

lped

(...

).T

hey

gave

me

good

idea

s.2:

LK

:St:E

duca

tion/

Inst

ruct

ion

XX

XX

XX

XX

8X

XX

XX

XX

XX

917

Ith

ink

that

my

clas

ses

inC

olle

gepr

epar

edm

e(.

..).

2:L

K:S

t:Com

pare

&C

ontr

ast

XX

XX

XX

X7

XX

X3

10C

ompa

ring

with

expe

rien

ces

and

acce

ssin

gad

ditio

nal

info

.2:

LK

:Sou

rces

(LK

:So)

2:L

K:S

o:E

xter

nal

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

10X

XX

XX

XX

XX

X10

20So

Ire

adbo

oks

and

also

wen

tto

wor

ksho

psw

ithpe

ople

.2:

LK

:So:

Inte

rnal

XX

XX

XX

XX

X9

XX

211

The

expe

rien

ce(.

..)

with

child

ren

(...

)ha

sta

ught

me

alo

t(..

.).

2:L

K:D

omai

nSp

ecifi

cX

X2

X1

3W

eha

vea

cert

ain

logi

cal

syst

emin

mat

h.2:

LK

:Unc

erta

inty

XX

XX

X5

XX

X3

8K

now

ing

that

you

actu

ally

don’

tkno

wan

ythi

ng.

3Ju

stifi

catio

nof

know

ledg

e(J

K)

3:JK

:Str

ateg

ies

(JK

:St)

3:JK

:St:C

ompa

re&

Con

tras

tX

XX

XX

XX

7X

XX

XX

XX

714

You

wei

ghev

eryt

hing

and

putt

hem

agai

nst

each

othe

r.3:

JK:S

t:O

bser

ving

XX

X3

XX

25

Itca

nbe

anob

serv

atio

n.

3:JK

:St:T

rial

&E

rror

XX

XX

4X

XX

37

Try

ing,

expe

rim

entin

g,ch

ance

.3:

JK:S

ourc

es(J

K:S

o)(C

onti

nued

onne

xtpa

ge)

51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

Pel

t and

Opi

e L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:42

17

Oct

ober

201

4

TAB

LE1

Cod

eH

iera

rchy

,Cod

eO

ccur

renc

eac

ross

Par

ticip

ants

,and

Exa

mpl

eQ

uota

tions

(Con

tinue

d)

Ger

man

part

icip

ants

US

part

icip

ants

Cat

egor

ies

Cod

es/S

ubco

des

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

G6

G7

G8

G9

G10

GTo

tal

US1

US2

US3

US4

US5

US6

US7

US8

US9

US1

0U

STo

tal

Tota

lsE

xam

ple

quot

atio

ns

3:JK

:So:

Ext

erna

lX

X2

XX

24

You

have

topr

obab

lygo

back

toth

ebo

oks,

see

wha

t’sw

ritte

n.3:

JK:S

o:In

tern

alX

XX

XX

X6

X1

7(.

..)

alli

nner

voic

essc

ream

ing:

“No,

this

can’

tbe

righ

t!”

3:JK

:Dom

ain

Spec

ific

XX

XX

X5

XX

XX

49

Insc

ienc

eyo

uw

ante

dto

doth

efa

cts

ashe

avy

aspo

ssib

le(.

..).

3:JK

:Unc

erta

inty

XX

XX

X5

XX

X3

8I

don’

tkno

wth

atth

ere’

sa

100%

way

you

can

actu

ally

prov

eit.

4O

rigi

nof

know

ledg

e(O

K)

4:O

K:P

eopl

e&

Mot

ivat

ion

XX

XX

XX

6X

X2

8T

here

’spe

ople

who

live

it,re

cord

it,an

dpa

ssit

dow

n.4:

OK

:Dom

ains

Spec

ific

XX

XX

X5

XX

27

(...

)th

efir

stfo

rms

ofba

rter

(...

)th

at’s

the

begi

nnin

gof

mat

h.4:

OK

:His

tori

cal

Proc

ess

XX

XX

XX

6X

XX

39

Wel

lsom

eof

itgo

esba

ckce

ntur

ies.

4:O

K:K

now

ledg

eIn

Env

iron

men

t0

XX

XX

XX

XX

88

It’s

alre

ady

ther

e,an

dit’

sbu

iltin

toth

ew

orld

.

52

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

Pel

t and

Opi

e L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:42

17

Oct

ober

201

4

TEACHERS’ PERSONAL EPISTEMOLOGY 53

Kappa, κ = 0.95 was achieved. In the subsequent analysis, a high Cohen’s Kappa value wasachieved when calculating the inter-rater reliability (κ = 0.94), which encompassed 100% of thedata.

RESULTS

The results of this study offer insight into elementary teachers’ beliefs about knowledge andknowing. As pointed out in the preceding Method section and as explicitly addressed in theDiscussion section, the more rural U.S. sample and the more urban German sample constitutea methodological issue with respect to the comparability of the interviewed teachers. Some ofour results indicate that differences between the two samples could be attributed to U.S. andGerman teachers operating within different professional contexts. The impact of other influencesis unclear: The cultural differences stemming from the rural and urban locations of the schools forexample, need to be accounted for as potentially important factors. Despite this methodologicalshortcoming, we think one of the main values of the study is its exploration of a relatively new andimportant area of research (i.e., cross-cultural comparison) that may provide noteworthy findingsand useful starting points for future research.

The qualitative content analyses that were utilized in the current study allowed us to reduce andcompare the personal epistemology of the interviewed elementary school teachers appropriateto the scope of this article. Some of the details of the teachers’ beliefs were backgrounded infavor of these more systematic analyses that resulted in categories and emerging themes. Tocounterbalance the reduction of detail, we embed quotations and indicate codes and subcodesin italicized print within the text of the following Results section and Table 1. Based on ouranalyses, we first present the four a priori categories of: (1) definition of knowledge, (2) learningof knowledge, (3) justification of knowledge, and (4) origin of knowledge (see Table 1). Then,we describe the four themes that emerged and cut across the categories: (1) accessing internalknowledge sources, (2) knowledge embedded within community, (3) the uncertainty of knowing,and (4) domain-specific aspects of knowledge (see Table 2 and Figure 1).

TABLE 2Differences and Similarities: Theme Occurrence Across Samples

Themes Total SampleGermanSample U.S. Sample Occurrence

(1) Accessing internalknowledge sources

n = 12/20 G n = 10/10 US n = 2/10 Difference: Mainly identified in Germansample

(2) Knowledge embeddedwithin community

n = 10/20 G n = 0/10 US n = 10/10 Difference: Only identified in U.S.sample

(3) Uncertainty ofknowing

n = 14/20 G n = 8/10 US n = 6/10 Similarity: Identified in German andU.S. samples

(4) Domain-specificaspects of knowledge

n = 16/20 G n = 10/10 US n = 6/10 Similarity: Identified in German andU.S. samples

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

Pel

t and

Opi

e L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:42

17

Oct

ober

201

4

54 FEUCHT AND BENDIXEN

FIGURE 1 Emerging themes and their underlying categories.

Categories

Definitions of Knowledge. The most abstract question in our interview protocol was thefirst question, asking for an explanation of knowledge. In their answers most of the German andU.S. teachers (n = 13/20, G n = 8, US n = 5/10; see also Table 1) believed that knowledge isa collection of facts, skills, and/or experiences. They referred to facts as information, concepts,and book knowledge and described, for example, “to know how to write” as a skill. Personalexperiences as knowledge was mentioned mainly by German teachers. Furthermore, teachers (n =13/20; G n = 7/10; US n = 6/10) also defined knowledge as something acquired through processesof learning and memorization, such as what is learned from books or life and then memorized.Seven teachers (n = 7/20; G n = 4/10; US n = 3/10) referred to knowing as the application ofknowledge, such as “knowledge is what you can apply to life.” Making use of knowledge wasperceived as an important aspect in general, throughout daily life, and in professional situations.

Interestingly, German teachers (n = 10/20; G n = 10/10; US n = 0/10) stressed the importanceof internal knowledge along with external sources. In the interviews, they describe on a moreabstract level how knowledge resides within themselves. They (n = 6/20; G n = 6/10; US n =0/10) literally referred to knowledge as abstract, personally constructed, and/or explained it alongtheoretical continua, such as abstract versus concrete, external versus internal, and consciousversus unconscious. Furthermore, eight teachers (n = 8/20; G n = 8/10; US n = 0/10) usedpersonal categories to distinguish among various kinds of knowledge. Some (n = 3/20; G n= 3/10; US n = 0/10) focused more on the origin of knowledge and mode of knowing, suchas cognitive, innate, physiological, emotional, and content knowledge, while others (n = 5/20;G n = 5/10; US n = 0/10) discriminated knowledge more along different domains, such asscience, social science, social, professional, and private knowledge. In this context, three teachers(n = 3/20; G n = 3/10; US n = 0/10) also mentioned knowledge and its various categories aspart of their personal worldviews.

U.S. teachers (n = 8/20; G n = 0/10; US n = 8/10) in contrast elaborated more broadlyon communal/environmental attributes of knowledge (see Table 1). That is, they focused onthe connectedness of knowledge throughout their daily life and environment. They describedknowledge as part of their life, embedded in their environment, and learned by exposure to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

Pel

t and

Opi

e L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:42

17

Oct

ober

201

4

TEACHERS’ PERSONAL EPISTEMOLOGY 55

technology and other people in their community. The U.S. teachers (n = 10/20; G n = 10/10; USn = 0/10) did not address the nature of internal knowledge sources or how they would interplaywith their external professional knowledge, for example. It might be assumed that they wouldmake use of such sources similar to the German teachers; however, the question remains why didthey not mention them during their interviews (for more details, see Result sections on learningand justification of knowledge)?

Acquisition of Knowledge. All teachers interviewed believed that knowledge can beacquired by using different strategies and accessing a variety of sources. We identifiedtwelve different strategies. The two most prevalent of these strategies, those that did not in-volve external knowledge sources, were described as simple rehearsing and practicing (n =15/20; G n = 7/10; US n = 8/10) and trial and error (n = 10; G n = 6/10; US n =4/10). Some teachers (n = 8/10; G n = 5/10; US n = 3/10) also believed that connectingand transferring knowledge across different areas would increase their knowledge, such astranslating their know-how of being a mother into their strategies of classroom management. Afew teachers believed that they could learn from having experiences (n = 6/20; G n = 4/10; USn = 2/10), observing others (n = 4/20; G n = 2/10; US n = 2/10), and listening to their intuitionor feelings (n = 3/20; G n = 3/10; US n = 0/10). Teachers also mentioned six strategies thatrequire accessing external sources or educational programs for the acquisition of new knowledge.The most prevalent strategies included continuous learning throughout their home, school, andteacher education (Education/Instruction; n = 17/20; G n = 8/10; US n = 9/10), the reading ofbooks, magazines, newspapers, and pedagogical journals (n = 13/20; G n = 8/10; US n = 5/10),and the asking and conversing with family members, neighbors, and experts (n = 11/20; G n =7/10; US n = 4/10). Some teachers also mentioned the comparing and contrasting of differentsources (n = 10/20; G n = 7/10; US n = 3/10), such as books and personal experiences, and theactive collaboration with their colleagues (n = 8/20; G n = 3/10; US n = 5/10). A few believedthat knowledge is being constantly acquired by being part of their community (n = 4/20; G n =0/10; US n = 4/10; for more details see below).

As evidenced in the strategies German and U.S. teachers described, they accessed differentkinds of external and internal sources. External sources (n = 20/20; G n = 10/10; US n =10/10; see Table 1) were much more prevalent than internal sources (n = 11/20; G n = 9/10;US n = 2/10). External sources were people (e.g., family members, experts, and study groups),educational programs (e.g., school and teacher training), and various forms of media (e.g.,print media: newspapers, professional journals, subject books, and encyclopedias; multi media:TV news and documentaries, computer programs, and the Internet). Interestingly, most of theteachers (n = 14/20; G n = 8/10; US n = 6/10) did not find their theoretical teacher training atthe university level on its own to be very helpful for the teaching of elementary school students.Collaboration, mentorship/apprenticeship, and team teaching were described as crucial to gettinga good grounding for their teaching (n = 9/20; G n = 3/10; US n = 6/10). After years ofteaching, additional graduate degrees or inservice training were perceived as supportive to furtherprofessional learning (n = 6/20; G n = 3/10; US n = 3/10), no matter if theoretical or practicalin nature.

While German and U.S. teachers more evenly accessed external sources, internal sourceswere more apparent in the interview transcripts of German teachers (n = 11/20; G n = 9/10; US

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

Pel

t and

Opi

e L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:42

17

Oct

ober

201

4

56 FEUCHT AND BENDIXEN

n = 2/10; see Table 1). Intuition, feelings, and personal experiences were mentioned by mostGerman teachers as an important source of information for their teaching and everyday life. Afew teachers (n = 3/20; G n = 3/10; US n = 0/10) also considered logic, aesthetic taste, and theirown conscience as relevant sources in certain knowledge domains. In addition, some teachers(n = 3/20; G n = 2/10; US n = 1/10) believed that their choices of strategies were domain-specific.They would, for example, use different strategies and access different sources when learning aboutknowledge in science as compared to the fine arts. Teachers (n = 8/20; G n = 5/10; US n =3/10) were also concerned about the credibility of the sources accessed in their learning (i.e.,uncertainty). This concern would seem to presume that uncertainty is a basic consideration, andit requires specific strategies of evaluation. This also played a role in their beliefs about thejustification of knowledge.

Justification of Knowledge. Similar to the acquisition of knowledge, this category encom-passed a combination of different strategies and sources to justify knowledge. Most teachers(n = 14/20; G n = 7/10; US n = 7/10) believed that comparing and contrasting different sourcesis an important process of knowledge verification. For example, when considering opposingclaims, teachers would trust the claim that had the higher number of sources supporting it. In thisline of thinking, eleven teachers (n = 11/20; G n = 7/10; US n = 4/10) explained that they wouldpurposefully combine sources that differed in their format, like books and intuition. The externaland internal sources used in the process of comparing and contrasting were similar to the sourcesaccessed when learning knowledge. Again, the access of internal sources was mentioned morein the interviews by German than U.S. teachers (n = 7/20; G n = 6/10; US n = 1/10). Internalsources, such as intuition, feelings, personal experiences, logic, and aesthetic taste were oftendescribed as warrants or criteria for their decision-making and their knowledge claims.

Some teachers (n = 7/20; G n = 4; US n = 3) mentioned trial and error as another simplebut successful strategy. In case of success, this strategy would allow them to acquire and verifyknowledge simultaneously while being assured that it actually “works” in their own classroomsor daily life. Observing was only mentioned as a strategy by a few teachers (n = 5/20; G n =3/10; US n = 2/10). It ranged from the simple “seeing is believing” approach to more systematicobservations of skills, behavior, and various forms of change.

Some teachers (n = 8/20; G n = 5/10; US n = 3/10) explained that they would combine twoor three justification strategies in order to overcome the uncertainty they believed to be part ofthis process (see Table 1). They were concerned about the credibility of knowledge sources; thatis, a biased or false source could negatively impact their judgment and decision making. One wayof overcoming this problem was to rely not solely on comparing and contrasting as a strategybut also to integrate in their judgment the outcomes of their trial and error and/or observation.Furthermore, seven teachers (n = 7/20; G n = 5/10; US n = 2/10) mentioned that certaintyin judgments can be domain-specific. That is, to them, some domains (e.g., science) seemed tobe more reliable in the provision of certain knowledge than others (e.g., history). Accordingly,they explained that they use different strategies and sources depending on the knowledge to beverified. Knowledge verification was considered a key to the origin of knowledge.

Origin of Knowledge. The answers of most teachers regarding the origin of knowledgewere more concise compared to their other responses. Eight teachers (n = 8/20; G n = 6/10;US n = 2/10) focused on the people involved in the generation of new knowledge and their

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

Pel

t and

Opi

e L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:42

17

Oct

ober

201

4

TEACHERS’ PERSONAL EPISTEMOLOGY 57

motivation for doing so. They mentioned scholars, researchers, experts, book authors, intelligentpeople or simply people who use strategies similar to their own processes of learning andjustifying (see Table 1: Categories 2 and 3). The ability to solve problems, for instance, to ensuresurvival, better communication, and more effective calculations, was perceived as instrumentalin the origin of knowledge. Knowledge, to nine teachers (n = 9/20; G n = 6/10; US n = 3/10),evolved through a long historical process of collecting information and passing it down to the nextgenerations. During this process the existing knowledge was believed to change constantly due tonew and revised knowledge. This process results in a continuously growing body of knowledgeand contributes to the uncertainty of its nature. In addition, some teachers (n = 7/20; G n = 5/10;US n = 2/10) believed the origin of knowledge to be domain-specific. For example, they describedthe origin of knowledge in English, music, and social science as a developing process of inventingand improving knowledge, while historical knowledge emerged by collecting and linking dateswith events. Knowledge, however, in the domains of science and mathematics, originated frommore empirical processes of knowledge verification. Finally, eight and solely U.S. teachers (n =8/20; G n = 0/10; US n = 8/10) explained that today’s knowledge is also emerging from theirenvironment (see Table 1). That is, “knowledge is coming from everything around us” (US5) and“it is built into the world” (US2). They referred to their families, friends, church, and communityas settings where knowledge could originate.

Emerging Themes

Four different themes emerged and cut across the previously described categories: (1) access-ing internal knowledge sources, (2) knowledge embedded within community, (3) uncertainty ofknowing, and (4) domain-specific aspects of knowledge (see Figure 1). Themes 1 and 2 illustrateddifferences between the German and U.S. sample, while Themes 3 and 4 indicated similaritiesbetween them (see Table 2). The differences between the German sample (i.e., Theme 1: access-ing internal knowledge sources) and U.S. sample (i.e., Theme 2: knowledge embedded withincommunity) is likely not influenced solely by cultural differences but also differences in profes-sional context (i.e., more urban vs. more rural school). This potential confounding is explicitlydiscussed later in the article.

Accessing Internal Knowledge Sources. Throughout their interviews German teachers(n = 12/20; G n = 10/10; US n = 2/10), in addition to external knowledge sources, had a strongfocus on their own intuition, feelings, and personal experiences as internal sources of knowledge(see Table 1 and Figure 1). Compare this to the majority of U.S. teachers who did not mentioninternal knowledge sources in the interviews, but rather stressed their reliance on knowledgesources stemming from their community. This theme of accessing internal knowledge sourceswas frequently referenced in teachers’ beliefs about learning (n = 11; G n = 9/10; US n = 2/10)and justifying (n = 7; G n = 6/10; US n = 1/10) knowledge (see internal sources, Table 1).German teachers (n = 3/20; G n = 3/10; US n = 0/10) also stated they would rely on intuitionand personal experiences in their teaching approaches. One teacher (G10) explained: “Yes, this[how to teach math] is an intuitive approach of mine. (. . .) And the personal experiences, I haveto say, I am now 30 years in the teaching profession and have recognized by now, that some

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

Pel

t and

Opi

e L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:42

17

Oct

ober

201

4

58 FEUCHT AND BENDIXEN

students learn it this way, some that way, and yet others in an even different way.” In other words,these teachers believed in listening to internal sources as personal warrants for their decisions andknowledge justifications. For example, “there is new incoming knowledge and if it is harmonious[with my own views], then it’s wonderful, then it is re-assuring me. (. . .) But if it causes aninternal outcry . . . ‘NO, that can’t be right!’ . . . then I need to do something to re-embed it in anew meaningful way” (G8). As these quotations illustrate, these German teachers seemed to valueinternal judgments as warrants when acquiring new information and/or when making decisions.

Without being asked, many of the German teachers (n = 8/20; G n = 8/10; US n = 0/10)discussed how their beliefs about knowledge would relate to, and emerge in, their classroomteaching. For example, one teacher (G4) believed that being a slave to a knowledge authoritycould be problematic. This teacher stresses to her students that they should not blindly obeyauthorities and/or view them as omniscient. This link between theory and practice was quiteprevalent in German teachers. U.S. teachers, in contrast, did not address this overlap betweentheory and practice on their own.

Knowledge Embedded Within Community. The second theme revolved around the beliefthat knowledge is environmental and communal and this stemmed from the U.S. teachers (n =10/20; G n = 0/10; US n = 10/10). Across all four categories, the majority of the U.S. teachersmentioned how their immediate environment and community matter to their understanding ofknowledge and knowing (see Table 1 and Figure1), such as Definition of Knowledge: Communaland Environmental (n = 8/20; G n = 0/10; US n = 8/10) and Origin of Knowledge: Knowledge inEnvironment (n = 8/20; G n = 0/10; US n = 8/10). Knowledge was perceived as being built intothe world; it just needs to be internalized. That is, “knowledge is gathering information, whetherit is from text books, from your world, your atmosphere around you, from technology, from otherpeople” (US9). U.S. teachers believed that knowledge and knowing is not only about learningfrom, but also sharing with, their community. They viewed knowledge as a result of a reciprocalexchange of receiving and sharing knowledge and viewed their role as shareholders within thisknowledge community. For example, one teacher (US5) explained, “I use my knowledge to teachothers how to read at the level they need to be taught at and this starts from very little snippets ofknowledge (. . .) until you just share more and more knowledge about reading.” When trying togain knowledge about reading, she said, “I would ask somebody who I thought had that knowledgeto share it with me.” With very few exceptions, U.S. teachers accessed external sources whenacquiring and justifying knowledge. Knowledge was predominately perceived of as external andbarely considered as internally derived. This belief was also reflective in their beliefs about theorigin of knowledge. That is, “Knowledge is everywhere, anyplace you go” (US1). This quotationis exemplary for this theme (see Table 1). Although this theme might give the impression thatU.S. teachers believed that knowledge is a stable and truthful reflection of their world and reality,the contrary was the case. U.S. and German teachers (n = 14/20; G n = 8/10; US n = 6/10) bothperceived knowledge as uncertain, no matter if it resides internally and/or externally.

The Uncertainty of Knowing. Many teachers across the entire sample believed in theuncertain and ever-changing nature of knowledge (n = 14/20; G n = 8/10; US n = 6/10). Thiswas reflective across the U.S. and German teachers’ beliefs about the learning (n = 8/20; G n =

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

Pel

t and

Opi

e L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:42

17

Oct

ober

201

4

TEACHERS’ PERSONAL EPISTEMOLOGY 59

5/10; US n = 3/10), justification (n = 8/20; G n = 5/10; US n = 3/10), and origin (n = 9/20; Gn = 6/10; US n = 3/10) of knowledge (see Table 1 and Figure 1). One U.S. teacher (US9), forexample, explained that “the world around us is ever-changing, science is ever-changing, historyis ever-changing—but yet it repeats itself.” Teachers believed that new technology and differentmethods of inquiry were used in the past to verify and falsify growing bodies of knowledgeclaims. They believed that in their own case, different methods of learning and justification couldlead to diverse knowledge. In this line of thinking, they questioned the credibility of variousinternal and external knowledge sources. To overcome this uncertainty in their own knowing,most teachers (n = 9/20; G n = 5/10; US n = 4/10) referred to the strategy of comparing andcontrasting different sources and the subsequent need to make informed choices. One teacher(G4) stated, “I can’t know it. I only can make a decision at one point to believe something. Ican form my own opinion. Thus, I finally make a decision for myself. Nope, let’s stick with theplanets; here I only can make a choice. I have now seen so many similar books (. . .), that I decidethis is what I believe now!” Still uncertain about knowledge sources and/or the judgment of onesole strategy, some teachers (n = 5/20; G n = 3/10; US n = 2/10) applied additional strategies,such as trial and error and observation. The uncertain and unstable nature of knowing was alsoreflected in beliefs about the origin of knowledge. Teachers believed that people were driven bytheir motivation to improve knowledge by verifying and/or falsifying existing knowledge (n =8/20; G n = 6/10; US n = 2/10) and that knowledge originates from a dynamic and historicalprocess (n = 9/20; G n = 6/10; US n = 3/10).

The statements of some teachers (n = 12/20; G n = 8/10; US n = 4/10) about the uncertaintyof knowledge and knowing seemed to reflect different levels of epistemic development. Thisfinding is based on a subsequent analysis where raters assigned these uncertainty beliefs to thedevelopmental levels of (a) absolutism (i.e., knowledge is more objective, simple, and dichoto-mous), (b) multiplism (i.e., knowledge is increasingly subjective complex, and relative), and (c)evaluativism (i.e., knowledge is both subjective and objective, complex, and context dependent)(Kuhn et al., 2000), which were used as coding categories. The calculated inter-rater reliabilityassociated with this finding was very good (see Method section). The uncertainty beliefs of someteachers were assigned to: (a) an absolutist view of knowledge (G3, G5) in that uncertainty can beovercome by simply following the definitions and rules, comparing textbooks and dictionaries,and listening to authorities in a knowledge domain, (b) a multiplist view (G2, US4, US9, US10)in that knowledge is seen as relative because it is based on a person’s values, experiences, andperceptions of the environment, or (c) an evaluativist view (G4) in that knowledge claims can bemade that are somewhat stable within a given context. On the other hand, some teachers (G1,G6, G7, G8, US3), who elaborated on more than one example of uncertainty, were assignedto multiple categories of epistemic development. For example, Teacher G7 seemed to take anabsolutist view when stating that “knowledge, such as swimming, is black and white. If you don’tfollow certain mechanisms you will sink,” and described a more multiplist view when mentioningthat “I don’t care about if there are better ways of making a bed than my way. (. . .) There aremany ways of making a bed,” and indicated a more evaluativist view when explaining that

Knowledge in education is diverse. (. . .) Because there is no black and white, right and wrong or fixedframework one could follow, I need to make choices and decisions within these multiple possibilities.These choices are made based on (. . .) what is best for the child and on factual knowledge. Suchchoices must be made and nobody can make them for you.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

Pel

t and

Opi

e L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:42

17

Oct

ober

201

4

60 FEUCHT AND BENDIXEN

In other words, some teachers seemed to hold beliefs about the uncertainty of knowledge thatcut across two or three different categories of epistemic development (n = 5/20; G n = 4/10; USn = 1/10), while others gave statements that were more consistently within one category (n = 7;G n = 4/10; US n = 3/10). This result of intrapersonal variability of developmental levels was notat the core of the investigation and should be considered preliminary. More research is needed tofurther investigate uncertainty beliefs as they pertain to developmental levels. Overall, the themeof the uncertainty of knowing also branched out into the belief that the nature of knowledge isdomain-specific.

Domain-Specific Aspects of Knowledge. The belief that knowledge is domain-specificwas found in many U.S. and German teachers (n = 16/20; G n = 10/10; US n = 6/10) and emergedacross all four categories (see Table 1 and Figure 1). All German teachers (G n = 10/10) definedknowledge along both academic and non-academic domains, such as science and humanities,private and professional knowledge, and physiological, emotional, and cognitive knowledge.Interestingly, these teachers were very consistent in the use of these domains throughout theirinterviews. When U.S. teachers (US n = 6/10) addressed domain-specificity they referred tomostly academic domains. Many teachers (n = 12/20; G n = 8/10; US n = 4/10) believedthat the domain-specificity of knowledge lies and/or originated in the nature of the domain,its methods, sources, and/or content. One teacher (US2) explained, for example, the differencebetween science and social science: “In science you wanted to do the facts as heavy as possible.And when you get into social science you can only study what people are thinking or feeling(. . .) social science is not really science at all, they are guesswork, speculation.” Similarly, G8stated that “in the domain of natural science knowledge, such as Pythagoras’ a2 + b2 = c2, hasbeen justified by multiple evidence. This knowledge will be taught until the day counter evidencewill be found.” and G1 explained “in some content areas such as German, music, art, peoplemight have a different understanding of what is right and wrong. The justification in these areasis, therefore, more difficult.” Overall, the theme of domain-specific aspects of knowledge wasintertwined with teachers’ definitions of knowledge and beliefs about justifying knowledge.

In summary, German and U.S. teachers were able to verbalize and elaborate on their beliefsabout knowledge and knowing. Teachers’ definitions of knowledge were based on beliefs aboutfacts, skills, and personal experiences, their learning, memorization, and application. The learningand justification of knowledge involved various strategies along with the usage of internal and/orexternal sources. Often teachers provided a rationale, such as the credibility of knowledge sourcesor domains-specific methods of inquiry, for their choices of using various strategies and sources.The origin of knowledge was believed to be driven by people motivated to improve knowl-edge and to be a dynamic, historical process of change. German and U.S. teachers referred tointernal and external sources of knowledge with German teachers pointing out the importanceof internal sources, and U.S. teachers focusing more on the connectedness of knowledge in theirexternal community. Both U.S. and German teachers believed that knowledge and knowing isuncertain and domain-specific in its nature.

DISCUSSION

While cross-cultural research is not a simple undertaking, we see great value in its pursuitin the field of personal epistemology, as do others (Haerle & Bendixen, 2008; Hofer, 2008;

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

Pel

t and

Opi

e L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:42

17

Oct

ober

201

4

TEACHERS’ PERSONAL EPISTEMOLOGY 61

Qian & Pan, 2002). The purpose of the current study was to explore the similarities and differencesin elementary school teachers’ personal epistemologies in Germany and the United States. Ourfindings offer additional clarity and new questions in terms of teachers’ beliefs about knowledgeand knowing and the educational implications for learning and instruction that stem from them.

In the first two sections we discuss the four themes that emerged from our analyses and howthe differences and similarities found in the U.S. and German teachers’ personal epistemologyrelate to existent theory and research in the field. In addition, we speculate on how the variouseducational goals and traditions within and across each context may play a role in impactingteachers’ beliefs about knowledge and knowing. The discussion of cross-cultural differencesamong teachers explicitly addresses the sample representativeness of the study with respect tothe interpretation of data. Finally, we point out some of the limitations of the current study andsome educational implications including recommendations for future research.

Differences Among the Teachers

Two themes emerged from the data that were unique to U.S. and German samples (see Table 1and 2). The ten interviewed U.S. teachers conveyed a view of knowledge as connected with theirsurrounding environment and community (i.e., knowledge embedded within community). Theyviewed knowledge as being a part of an interconnected web of people (e.g., children, neighbors),places (e.g., school, church), and things (e.g., books, computers). The ten German teachers had anunderstanding of knowledge as stemming from internal processes of knowing that complementexternal sources (i.e., accessing internal sources of knowledge). For instance, intuition, feelings,and personal experiences were important aspects of their beliefs about knowledge.

We propose that these differences offer insight into the context within which these teacherswere trained in terms of educational goals/traditions and suggest that practical components mayplay a role in some of the differing views (e.g., the German teachers develop and practice theirpersonal teaching philosophy (Didaktik), while U.S. teachers rely more on scientifically basedpractice). Such differences might stem from a range of possibilities, such as the local culturalcontext, the culture of the teacher preparation tradition, and/or the community of practitioners.

Knowledge Embedded Within Community. The central focus of this theme pertains tothe U.S. teachers describing knowledge as external or embedded within their surroundings.A view that knowledge exists outside the individual is consistent with an absolutist personalepistemology (Kuhn et al., 2000). It also coincides with the realist worldview that assumes thatexisting knowledge is objective, relatively unchanging, and established by experts. This viewwould also be consistent with the view that knowledge is best acquired through transmission,that the teacher’s role is active with students as passive recipients, and that curricula and schoolbooks are viewed as authorities (Schraw & Olafson, 2002). The majority of teachers, however,gave differently coded descriptions of knowledge in different domains, and so cannot be neatlycategorized along these lines.

That the U.S. teachers discussed external sources of knowledge far more than internal sourcesis somewhat inconsistent with previous findings that showed that North American and Australianteachers stressed both internal and external sources (e.g., Brownlee, Purdie, & Boulton-Lewis,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

Pel

t and

Opi

e L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:42

17

Oct

ober

201

4

62 FEUCHT AND BENDIXEN

2001; White, 2000). This finding is also consistent with studies that found that teachers andstudents in Asia tended to rely more on external and authoritative sources of knowledge thanAmerican teachers (Chan & Elliot, 2000; Lin, 2001; Qian & Pan, 2002; Tsai, 2002). The focuson external and/or internal resources may be an important distinction among teachers operatingin, what we assume to be, two similar Western educational contexts (Germany and the U.S.) andcertainly more research is needed to further examine this finding.

The fact that the interviewed U.S. teachers worked in a small rural town might also havefostered the belief that knowledge is embedded in their local community. For example, membersof a smaller town may tend to be more closely involved and thus they might see more value ingaining knowledge from their community (Knight, Knight, & Quickenton, 1996).

Furthermore, the focus of U.S. teachers on accessing external sources of knowledge and theview that external knowledge would be gathered and then shared/transmitted to students could beartifacts of their teacher training. It has been proposed that teacher education in the U.S. focusesmore on a transmission view of teaching/learning (Chicoine, 2004), and the need for preserviceteachers to access an external body of knowledge and skills to facilitate student learning mayimpact U.S. teachers’ views regarding external sources of knowledge (Brophy & Good, 1986;Jarolimek & Foster, 2005; Westbury, 1998). Direct answers to these questions do not fall underthe auspices of the current study but future investigations could be undertaken along these lines.

Internal Knowledge Sources. German elementary teachers, in addition to external knowl-edge sources, said they also accessed knowledge through their intuition, feelings, and personalexperiences. This theme of accessing internal knowledge sources seems to coincide with Germaneducational traditions in general and goals of teacher education, in particular, that teachers shoulddevelop their own instructional approaches, make autonomous decisions in their teaching, and beprofessionals in their own right (Noak, 1999). For instance, the didactical triangle includes thecontent, the learner, and the teacher and the interrelations among these components (Kansanen,1995, 2002). In this view of education, the teacher and his/her internal resources are consideredan essential aspect of learning and instruction (Hopmann & Riquarts, 1995). Therefore, accessinginternal sources of knowledge may stem from the teachers’ extensive training in German Didaktikand may explain how they talk about knowledge.

In addition, the important role of the teacher in the didactical process could also help explainwhy many of the German teachers in their description of what knowledge is (i.e., from thefirst interview question) explained, without being prompted, how it was related to their teachingpractices.

Cultural Influences. In this section, we extend our discussion of possible influences thatmay play a role in the differences found between the U.S. and German teachers. The differencescannot be solely attributed to national-level differences in the professional context of the U.S. andGerman teachers. For this reason, we suggest a range of cultural factors that may have influencedthe differences identified between the samples.

As was discussed previously, it could be argued that the teachers’ different epistemic beliefsmay have stemmed from more local influences specific to the U.S. versus the German professionalcontext and teacher training, respectively. That is, teachers could have been influenced at different

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

Pel

t and

Opi

e L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:42

17

Oct

ober

201

4

TEACHERS’ PERSONAL EPISTEMOLOGY 63

times and in different situations in their professional training and practice by their local communityof practitioners (i.e., school and district), the traditions and goals of their particular schoolsystem, and the culture of their university’s teacher preparation tradition. For example, it couldbe presumed that beliefs about the nature of knowledge and knowing were explicitly consideredin the German teachers’ preparation that includes a strong didactical tradition. The U.S. teachers,in contrast, may have built their epistemic views more on their own, or relied on the broadereducational context because didactics does not seem to be a focus. The influence of such contextualfactors is quite speculative at this point but further research could shed light on them.

It could also be speculated that the identified differences were caused by the fact that theU.S. teachers were teaching in a more rural setting and the German teachers in a more urbansetting (i.e., more rural versus more urban professional teaching context). For example, the morerural community of practitioners might have fostered the U.S. teachers’ belief that knowledgeis embedded within their everyday environment, as members of smaller towns may tend to bemore closely involved in their communities (Knight et al., 1996). In contrast, the more urbanenvironment of the German teachers may entail that they do not access or consider knowledgeand knowledge sources in their shared environment and context as much (Knight et al., 1996).

It is probably safe to assume at this point that a combination of factors in the German and U.S.contexts accounts for the differences in the teachers’ responses. No data-driven resolution can beput forward because the representativeness of the sample does not allow that some influences onthe epistemic differences be eliminated. Nonetheless, the findings that teachers’ beliefs can differalong these lines constitute an important starting point for future research.

Similarities Among the Teachers

We identified two themes, the uncertainty of knowing and domain-specific aspects of knowledgethat were cited and discussed in nearly all of the teacher interviews. Most teachers acrossthe entire sample believed in the uncertain ever-changing nature of knowledge. Teachers alsodiscussed various domains and categories across which they believed the nature of knowledgeand knowing would differ, such as the justification of scientific and historical knowledge (seeTable 1). These commonalities provide insights into the complexity of epistemic development.

Uncertainty of Knowing. The certainty of knowledge is often conceptualized along acontinuum ranging from unchanging to constantly evolving, and beliefs about the certainty ofknowledge are considered to be a key dimension of personal epistemology (Hofer & Pintrich,2002; Schommer, 1990; Perry, 1970). For example, an absolutist can be temporarily uncertainabout an aspect of knowledge but believe that eventually the truth will be discovered. A multiplist,on the other hand, sees uncertainty as a given and further effort to gain certainty is futile. Finally,an evaluativist acknowledges uncertainty but aims to resolve it, at least temporarily, by committingto knowledge claims within the limits of a particular context (Kuhn et al., 2001).

Many of the teachers in our sample gave examples of uncertain knowledge (e.g., “Knowl-edge is changing and cannot be known with certainty. My knowledge is ever-changing bygaining new methods and new philosophies” (US9)). However, an important point that wediscovered in completing our additional analyses was that information about a person’s belief

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

Pel

t and

Opi

e L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:42

17

Oct

ober

201

4

64 FEUCHT AND BENDIXEN

in the uncertainty of knowledge is not sufficient to understand clearly that individual’s personalepistemology.

Therefore, the need for more detail concerning beliefs about uncertainty has important method-ological implications. Researchers should consider that, for example, in Likert scales used in thefield, participants may have “high” scores on uncertainty, but more descriptive methods, such asinterviews and/or think-aloud protocols, could retrieve more details allowing for a more nuancedview of the personal epistemology of participants.

Domain-Specific Aspects of Knowledge. Domain-specific beliefs about knowledge andknowing are regarded as significant aspects of personal epistemology (e.g., Buehl & Alexander,2005; Muis, Bendixen, & Haerle, 2006; Schommer-Aikins et al., 2005). For example, Buehl,Alexander, and Murphy (2002) found domain differences in undergraduate students’ epistemo-logical beliefs regarding mathematics and history. Muis et al. (2006) recommend that to gain abetter understanding of the role of domain-specificity in personal epistemology a clear definitionof “academic domain” knowledge needs to be established. In our sample, most teachers seemedto have a distinct understanding of academic domains, such as mathematics, science, social sci-ence, literature, history, and music, when they discussed knowledge and knowing. The fact thatacademic domains are organized and taught as separate school subjects at all levels of schoolingincluding teacher education might influence the development of these domain-specific beliefs inthe teachers (e.g., McDevitt & Ormrod, 2008; Weinreich, 1963).

Interestingly, the German teachers also discussed “nonacademic” and/or private knowledgedomains (e.g., physical and emotional) as a central aspect of knowledge and knowing. This findingis consistent with Fives and Buehl (2010) who examined teachers’ beliefs about teaching as adomain in its own right including nonacademic aspects such as knowledge about children andself. Expanding our consideration of domains to include academic and nonacademic aspects andtheir educational implications for personal epistemology is a fruitful endeavor for future theoryand research.

Limitations

There are some important limitations regarding the current study. The sample size of this explo-rative study does not allow for generalization of the results far beyond the context of the twentyinterviewed teachers. Care needs to be taken not to oversimplify the representativeness of thesample either in terms of national culture, local environment, or teacher culture. Also, the designof the study and our analyses did not permit a more systematic examination of the developmentof teachers’ personal epistemology, or how that epistemology may impact teaching practices. Wefeel that despite these shortcomings, this explorative study provides some clarity regarding theconstruct of personal epistemology and offers several possible approaches for future research.

Educational Implications

In the following section we discuss the implications of the current study for classroom practiceand for teacher education.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

Pel

t and

Opi

e L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:42

17

Oct

ober

201

4

TEACHERS’ PERSONAL EPISTEMOLOGY 65

Teachers’ Personal Epistemology. As was noted earlier, teachers’ beliefs about knowl-edge and knowing are generally believed to play an important role in the classroom, but theprecise impact of teachers’ personal epistemology on their practice is unclear (Flowerday &Schraw, 2000; Sinatra & Kardash, 2004). Some studies have found discrepancies between statedepistemological beliefs and actual teaching (e.g., Feucht, 2008; Schraw & Olafson, 2002). Otherresearch, however, provides evidence that teachers’ beliefs are associated with instructionalactivities (e.g., Gill et al., 2004) and have an influence on students (e.g., Muis & Foy, 2010).Interestingly, the German teachers in the current study did discuss (without prompting) how theythought their beliefs about knowledge and knowing affected their teaching but, again, we do notknow if this actually did occur in their classrooms.

The influence of personal epistemology on actual pedagogy remains an important questionthat needs to be explored. This state of the field certainly lends itself to the need for futureresearch along these lines. Subsequent observational studies, for example, could examine if andhow teachers enact their epistemological beliefs in their classrooms and its potential impact onstudent learning.

Teacher Education. In this section, we discuss the possible effects educational goals andtraditions may have on teacher education and the possible benefits that could arise.

During the interviews in our study, both German and U.S. teachers seemed quite capable ofthinking about and discussing knowledge and knowing. This is interesting because epistemicbeliefs are not commonly discussed in everyday conversations. It has been proposed that beliefsabout the nature of knowledge and knowing are more implicit than explicit (Schraw & Olafson,2002). What would be the benefits of a more explicit and cohesive set of beliefs about knowledgeand knowing? We think the benefits are numerous. For example, existing theoretical and empiricalwork suggests that the more teachers are aware of their epistemic beliefs, the more likely they areto (a) have theory-like personal epistemologies (Hofer, 2001), (b) change their beliefs intentionally(Bendixen & Rule, 2004), (c) be open to educational reform and alternative approaches in theirclassrooms (Patrick & Pintrich, 2001), and (d) become more reflective and effective in theirpractice (Schoen, 1983).

Future research needs to be conducted that methodologically traces the influence of teachers’personal epistemology into their classroom practices and student learning outcomes. One promis-ing avenue for this would be to take a more fine-grained approach and focus on the complexitiesof individual classrooms (e.g., Elby & Hammer, 2010; Feucht, 2010).

CONCLUSION

The value of the current qualitative study lies in its cross-cultural nature as most of the previoustheoretical and empirical work on personal epistemology stems from U.S. samples of universitystudents (Hofer, 2008). The insights that were gleaned pertaining to the personal epistemology offourth-grade teachers can inform the development and design of future studies. Further, we alsosee great educational potential in understanding cultural similarities and differences associatedwith more general aspects of personal epistemology in terms of its form (e.g., What is the make-upof the underlying construct?), content (e.g., What are the epistemic messages found in pedagogy,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

Pel

t and

Opi

e L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:42

17

Oct

ober

201

4

66 FEUCHT AND BENDIXEN

curriculum, and textbooks?) and function (e.g., How does personal epistemology impact learningand instruction?) in the classroom.

REFERENCES

Ashwill, M. A. (1999). The educational system in Germany: Case study findings. Washington, DC: National Institute onStudent Achievement, Curriculum, and Assessment (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED430906).

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender-related patterns in students’ intellectualdevelopment. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bendixen, L. D., & Feucht, F. C. (2010). Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, and implications forpractice. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Bendixen, L. D., & Rule, D. C. (2004). An integrative approach to personal epistemology: A guiding model. EducationalPsychologist, 39(1), 69–80.

Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (1982). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston,MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. (1986). Teacher behavior and student assessment. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of researchon teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 328–375). New York: Macmillan.

Brownlee, J., Purdie, N., & Boulton-Lewis, G. (2001). Changing epistemological beliefs in pre-service teacher educationstudents. Teaching in Higher Education, 6(2), 247–268.

Buehl, M. M. (2008). Assessing the multidimensionality of students’ epistemic beliefs across diverse cultures. In M. S.Khine (Ed.), Knowing, knowledge and beliefs: Epistemological studies across diverse cultures (pp. 65–112). NewYork: Springer.

Buehl, M. M., & Alexander, P. A. (2005). Motivation and performance differences in students’ domain-specific episte-mological belief profiles. American Educational Research Journal, 42(4), 697–726.

Buehl, M. M., Alexander, P. A., & Murphy, P. K. (2002). Beliefs about schooled knowledge: Domain general or domainspecific? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 415–449.

Chan, K. W., & Elliot, R. G. (2004). Epistemological beliefs across cultures: Critique and analysis of beliefs structurestudies. Educational Psychology, 24(2), 123–142.

Chan, K. W., & Elliott, R. G. (2000). Exploratory study of epistemological beliefs of Hong Kong teacher educationstudents: Resolving conceptual and empirical issues. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 28(3), 225–234.

Chandler, M., Boyes, M., & Ball, L. (1990). Relativism and stations of epistemic doubt. Journal of Experimental ChildPsychology, 50, 370–395.

Chicoine, D. (2004). Ignoring the obvious: A constructivist critique of the traditional teacher education program. Educa-tional Studies, 36(3), 245–263.

Cohen, D. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and PolicyAnalysis, 12(3), 327–345.

Cohen, J. A. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20,37–46.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5th ed.). London: Routledge Falmer.Downing, J., & D’Andrea, L. M. (1996). What American elementary school counselors can learn from European

educational systems. Elementary School Guidance & Counseling, 2(31), 114–21.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 epistemologyin the classroom: Theory, research, and implications for practice. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Feucht, F. C. (2008). The nature of epistemic climates in elementary classrooms (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Las Vegas, Nevada.

Feucht, F. C. (2010). Epistemic climates in elementary classrooms. In L. D. Bendixen & F. C. Feucht (Eds.), Personal epis-temology in the classroom: Theory, research, and implications for practice (pp. 55–93). Cambridge, MA: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Fives, H., & Buehl, M. M. (2010). Teachers’ articulation of beliefs about teaching knowledge: Conceptualizing a beliefframework. In L. D. Bendixen & F. C. Feucht (Eds.), Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, andimplications for practice (pp. 470–515). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

Pel

t and

Opi

e L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:42

17

Oct

ober

201

4

TEACHERS’ PERSONAL EPISTEMOLOGY 67

Flowerday, T., & Schraw, G. (2000). Teacher beliefs about instructional choice: A phenomenological study. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 92, 634–645.

Gill, M. G., Ashton, P. T., Algina, J. (2004). Changing preservice teachers’ epistemological beliefs about teaching andlearning in mathematics: An intervention study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(2), 164–185.

Glaeser, J., & Laudel, G. (1999). Theoriegeleitete Textanalyse? Das Potential einer variablenorientierten qualitativenInhaltsanalyse [Theory guided text analysis. The potential of a variable-oriented qualitative content analysis.] Berlin:Wissensschaftszentrum Berlin fur Sozialforschung GmbH.

Gottlieb, E. (2007). Learning how to believe: Epistemic development in cultural context. Journal of the Learning Sciences,16(1), 5–35.

Gundem, B., & Hopmann, S. (Eds.). (1998) Didaktik and/or curriculum: An international dialogue. New York: PeterLang.

Haerle, F. C., & Bendixen, L. D. (2008). Personal epistemology in elementary classrooms: A conceptual comparisonof Germany and the United States and a guide for future cross-cultural research. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing,knowledge and beliefs: Epistemological studies across diverse cultures (pp. 151–176). New York: Springer.

Hammer, D. H., & Elby, A. (2002). On the form of personal epistemology. In B. K. Hofer & P.R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personalepistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 169–190). Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.

Hofer, B. K. (2000). Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in personal epistemology. Contemporary EducationalPsychology, 25, 378–405.

Hofer, B. K. (2001). Personal epistemology research: Implications for learning and teaching. Educational PsychologyReview, 13, 353–383.

Hofer, B. K. (2008). Personal epistemology and culture. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing, knowledge and beliefs: Episte-mological studies across diverse cultures (pp. 3–22). New York: Springer.

Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge andknowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 88–140.

Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hopmann, S., & Riquarts, K. (1995). Staring a dialogue: Issues in a beginning conversation between Diadaktik and thecurriculum traditions. Journal for Curriculum Studies, 27(1), 3–12.

Howard, B. C., McGee, S., Schwartz, N., & Purcell, S. (2000). The experience of constructivism: Transforming teacherepistemology. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(4), 455–65.

Jarolimek, J., & Foster, C. D. (1985). Teaching and learning in the elementary school. New York: Collier MacMillanPublishers.

Jarolimek, J., Foster, C. F., & Kellough, R. (2005). Teaching and learning in the elementary school. Upper Saddle River,NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Johnston, P., Woodside-Jiron, H., & Day, J. (2001). Teaching and learning literate epistemologies. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 93(1), 223–233.

Kansanen, P. (2002). Didactics and its relation to educational psychology: Problems in translating a key concept acrossresearch communities. International Review of Education, 48(6), 427–441.

Kansanen, P. (2003). Studying—the realistic bridge between instruction and learning. An attempt to a conceptual wholeof the teaching-studying-learning progress. Educational Studies, 29(2/3), 221–232.

Kansanen, P. (1995). The Deutsche Didaktik. Journal for Curriculum Studies, 27(4), 347–352.Kardash, C. M., & Howell, K. L.,(2000). Effects of epistemological beliefs and topic-specific beliefs on undergraduates

cognitive and strategic processing of dual-positional text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 524–535.Kauchak, D., Eggen, P., & Carter, C. (2002). Introduction to teaching: Becoming a professional. Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Merrill Prentice Hall.King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Knight, J. P., Knight, C. S., & Quickenton, A. (1996). Education in rural schools. The Educational Forum, 61, 84–89.Kohlbacher, F. (2005). The Use of Qualitative Content Analysis in Case Study Research. Forum Qualitative

Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 7(1), Art. 21. Retrieved July 21, 2007, fromhttp://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/1-06/06-1-21-e.htm

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: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

Pel

t and

Opi

e L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:42

17

Oct

ober

201

4

68 FEUCHT AND BENDIXEN

Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Kuhn, D., Cheney, R., & Weinstock, M. (2000). The development of epistemological understanding. Cognitive Develop-

ment, 15, 309–28.Lake, K., & Kafka, K. (1996). Reporting methods in grades K–8. In T. Guskey (Ed.), ASCD 1996 Yearbook: Communi-

cating student learning (pp. 90–118). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Lin, C. H. (2001). Epistemological development and academic performance among elementary students. Journal of

National Taichung Teachers College, 15, 191–206.Mayring, P. (2002). Einfuhrung in die qualitative Sozialforschung: Eine Anleitung zu qualitativem Denken [Introduction

to qualitative social research: Guidelines for qualitative thinking], 5th edition. Weinheim: Beltz.McCaslin, M., & Good, T. (1996). The informal curriculum. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational

psychology (pp. 622–670). New York: Macmillan.McDevitt, T. M., & Ormrod, J. E. (2008). Child development and education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice

Hall.Muhr, T. (2004). ATLAS.ti v5.0 User’s guide and reference, 2nd edition. Berlin: Scientific Software Development.Muis, K. R., & Foy, M. J. (2010). The effects of teachers’s beliefs on elementary students’ beliefs, motivation, and

achievement in mathematics. In L. D. Bendixen & F. C. Feucht (Eds.), Personal epistemology in the classroom:Theory, research, and implications for practice. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Muis, K. R., Bendixen, L. D., & Haerle, F. C. (2006). Domain-generality and domain-specificity in personal epistemol-ogy research: Philosophical and empirical reflections in the development of a theoretical framework. EducationalPsychology Review, 18(1), 3–54.

Noak, E. G. (1999). Comparing U.S. and German education: Like apples and sauerkraut. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(10),773–776.

Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2004). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues. Boston, MA: Pearson.Patrick, H., & Pintrich, P. R. (2001). Conceptual change in teachers’ intuitive conceptions of learning, motivation, and

instructions: The role of motivational and epistemological beliefs. In B. Torf & R. Sternberg (Eds.), Understandingand teaching the intuitive mind (pp. 117–143). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Perry, W. G., Jr. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt,Rinehart and Winston.

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: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Purves, A. C. (1988). General education and the search for a common culture. In I. Westbury & A. C. Purves (Eds.),Cultural literacy and the idea of general education (pp. 1–8). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Qian, G., & Alvermann, D. (2000). The relationship between epistemological beliefs and conceptual change learning.Reading Writing Quarterly, 16, 59–74.

Qian, G., & Pan, J. (2002). A comparison of epistemological beliefs and learning from science text between Americanand Chinese high school students. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology ofbeliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 389–414). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ritsert, J. (1972). Inhaltsanalyse und Ideologiekritik: Ein Versuch uber Kritische Sozialforschung [Content analysis andideology critique: A critical contemplation on social research]. Frankfurt am Main: Anthenaum Fischer TaschenbuchVerlag.

Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Shavelson, R. J., Hamilton, L., & Klein, S. (2002). On the evaluation of systemic science educationreform: Searching for instructional sensitivity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(5), 369–393.

Schoen, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 82, 498–504.Schommer, M., Crouse, A., & Rhodes, N. (1992). Epistemological beliefs and mathematical text comprehension: Believ-

ing it is simple does not make it so. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 435–443.Schommer-Aikins, M., Duell, O. K., & Hutter, R. (2005). Epistemological beliefs, mathematical problem-solving beliefs,

and academic performance of middle school students. The Elementary School Journal, 105(3), 289–304.Schraw, G., & Olafson, L. (2002). Teacher’s epistemological worldviews and educational practices. Issues in Education,

8(2), 99–148.Sinatra, G. M., & Kardash, C. A. M. (2004). Teacher candidates’ epistemological beliefs, dispositions, and views on

teaching as persuasion. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(4), 483–498.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

Pel

t and

Opi

e L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:42

17

Oct

ober

201

4

TEACHERS’ PERSONAL EPISTEMOLOGY 69

Slavin, R., Karweit, N., & Madden, N. (Eds.). (1989). Effective programs for students at risk. Needham Heights, MA:Allyn & Bacon.

Titscher, S., Meyer, M., Wodak, R., & Vetter, E. (2000). Methods of text and discourse analysis. London: Sage.Tobin, K., & McRobbie, C. (1997). Beliefs about the nature of science and the enacted science curriculum. Science and

Education, 6(4), 355–371.Tsai, C.-C. (2002). Nested epistemologies: Science teachers’ beliefs of teaching, learning and science. International

Journal of Science Education, 24(8), 771–783.Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.Weinreich, U. (1963). Language in contact: Findings and problems. The Hague: Mouton.Westbury, I. (1998). Didaktik and curriculum studies. In B. B. Gundem & S. Hopmann (Eds.), Didaktik and/or curriculum:

An international dialogue (47–78). New York: Peter Lang.White, B. C. (2000). Pre-service teachers’ epistemology viewed through perspectives on problematic classroom situations.

Journal of Education for Teaching, 26(3), 279–306.Whitebread, D. (2000). Teaching children to think, reason, solve problems and be creative. In D. Whitebread (Ed.), The

psychology of teaching and learning in the primary school (pp. 140–164). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.Wong, B., Khine, M. S., & Sing, C. C. (2008). Challenges and future directions for personal epistemology research

in diverse cultures. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing, knowledge and beliefs: Epistemological studies across diversecultures (pp. 445–456). New York: Springer.

Yang, F. Y., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). An epistemic framework for scientific reasoning in informal contexts. In L. D. Bendixen& F. C. Feucht (Eds.), Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, and implications for practice(pp. 124–162). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

APPENDIX

Interview Transcript with Example Interview Question and Ad Hoc Questions(. . .)

Interviewer: Could you explain to me where knowledge comes from? [Interview Question 5]

Teacher: Well I guess that knowledge is just everything around us. Of course (. . .) knowledge is putinto book form but there is so much knowledge that people can share with other people; knowledgefrom first hand experiences.

Interviewer: What do you mean by first hand experiences? [Ad Hoc Question]

Teacher: Well if a child is outside or like if you are in the sun too long and you get sunburned. Thatis a first hand experience. (. . .)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Van

Pel

t and

Opi

e L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:42

17

Oct

ober

201

4