The timing and critical incident of epistemic beliefs change in Hong Kong college students: an exploratory study. Issue 2 (3rd April 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Lee, Wincy Wing Sze
• Is Part Of: Asia Pacific journal of education. Volume 38:Issue 2(2018)
• Page Start: 164
• Page End: 174
• Publication Date: 2018-04-03
• Subjects: Epistemic beliefs change -- Chinese -- critical incidents and cognitive interviewing technique; Education -- Pacific Area -- Periodicals; Education -- Asia -- Periodicals; Education and state -- Pacific Area -- Periodicals; Education and state -- Asia -- Periodicals; Education -- Social aspects -- Pacific Area -- Periodicals; Education -- Social aspects -- Asia -- Periodicals; 370.95952
• DOI: 10.1080/02188791.2018.1460251
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0218-8791

Abstract

Abstract: Research on epistemic beliefs (beliefs about what knowledge is and what knowing is) has advanced and there is now a burgeoning interest in examining this construct in the Chinese cultural context. However, issues related to understanding epistemic beliefs change remain under-explored. The present study used a qualitative approach to explore Chinese college students' timing and critical incidents of epistemic beliefs change. Eight college students from Hong Kong participated in interviews and three key themes emerged from their responses. First, students identified college transition as a major source of epistemic perturbation. Second, they attributed epistemic beliefs change mostly to educational encounters. These encounters were characterized by a curriculum with multiple perspectives, being taught by teachers who could provide cognitive scaffolding for epistemic belief resolution, and assessment processes that allowed the latitude to demonstrate multiple perspectives. Furthermore, these characteristics of assessment (mainly regarding examinations) also emerged as a strand of culturally nuanced findings. Students explicitly regarded assessment influencing their epistemic beliefs and described how they differentiated their incongruent "professed" and "practised" epistemic beliefs so as to fit the rules of the public examination. The findings have yielded cultural implications and suggest the need to understand epistemic beliefs transcending the naive-sophisticated dichotomy.