4.2 Article

Associations of epistemic beliefs in science and scientific reasoning in university students from Taiwan and India

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION
Volume 41, Issue 10, Pages 1347-1365

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2019.1606960

Keywords

Comparative study; reasoning; higher education

Funding

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology Taiwan [107-2511-H-003 -013 -MY3, 106-2511-S-003 -059 -MY3]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The purpose of this study was to comparetheassociations of epistemic beliefs in science, performance of scientific reasoningin university students from Taiwan and India, and the relations with theirscience learning experiences. A total of 126 university students including 67 from Taiwan and 59 from India who had science and mathematics backgrounds were involved in the study. Students' epistemic beliefs in science were assessed by the SEV questionnaire, while their reasoning performance and learning experiences were prompted by open-ended questions and survey items. Content analysis was performed to analyze their scientific reasoning, and correlation analysis, t tests and ANOVA were applied to reveal the associations between variables. The results showed that students from bothcountries differed in epistemic beliefs in the dimensions of certainty, development and justification. While few students from either country performed successfully in identifying genuine evidence and giving full rebuttals, Taiwanese participants seemed to demonstrate slightly better scientific reasoning. It was found that the Indian students were more balanced in receiving structured and engaged learning experiences. Varying associations for the students from the different countries were found between epistemic beliefs and scientific reasoning performance, and between epistemic beliefs and science learning experiences.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available