Which science disciplines are pertinent?: impact of epistemological beliefs on students' choices

The growth of scientific and technological knowledge in modern societies has lead to an increase of specialization of knowledge and expertise. Most socio-scientific issues are far too complex to be understood deeply by laypersons. From various disciplines we have to choose pertinent ones if we want to rely on expert advice. Epistemological beliefs might be helpful to cope with this challenge. Furthermore it is necessary to have realistic awareness of one’s own fragmentary understanding and to avoid the “illusion of explanatory depth” (Rosenblit & Keil, 2002). In order to research on adults’ capability to choose between disciplines who might be relevant for a science topic, N = 520 secondary school students were asked to choose, which of 22 scientific disciplines (e.g. math, geology, biology) should contribute to a book about tide and float. They were also asked to assess their own knowledge about the theme. Influence of epistemological beliefs has been tested by an epistemological sensitization in an experimental design. The epistemological sensitization significantly influences students' self-assessment of knowledge and discipline rating. Students with sophisticated epistemological beliefs were more critical about their own knowledge about tide and flow, chose significantly pertinent and -by tendencypotential pertinent disciplines more and declined non-pertinent disciplines more. Introduction Division of cognitive labor The enormous growth and importance of scientific and technological knowledge in modern societies entail various consequences. Knowledge is unevenly distributed and we are laypersons in most knowledge domains. Dealing with various problems demand different and diversified knowledge backgrounds. Most socioscientific issues (chemical additions to food, genetic engineering; Zeidler, Sadler, Applebaum & Callahan, 2009) are far too complex to be understood deeply by laypersons, but it is nevertheless necessary for laypersons to reason and to decide about these issues with regard to personal health or with regard to civic participation. Laypersons must rely on experts based on their own fragmentary understanding of such issues (Bromme, Kienhues & Porsch, 2009). Even children learn from the very beginning that they have to rely on others in order to get information, to answer a question, or to solve a problem (Bergstrom, Moehlmann, & Boyer, 2006). Children know that they can ask parents and peers if they need to know something. They differentiate who to trust (Harris, 2007), they are aware that people have different areas of expertise, and know how knowledge is clustered in the minds of others (Keil et al., 2008). For instance, in a study by Lutz and Keil (2002), 56 children of different age (3-, 4-, and 5-year-olds) had to judge which of two experts (a car mechanic or a doctor) would know more about a specific topic. Results show that the 4-and 5-year olds were able to attribute knowledge correctly based on scientific principles, whereas the 3-year olds performed better than chance merely on stereotypical role items. Even children have an early notion of the division of cognitive labor, they have an assumption which experts might know something about what. In the following we will call this knowledge about the “disciplines` pertinence” to certain issues. An understanding of the pertinence of different knowledge fields to different issues must be based on an understanding of the structure of knowledge. Scientific knowledge has been developed in and is taught in academic disciplines, for example in school or at universities (Stevens, Wineburg, Herrenkohl, & Bell, 2005). We all grow up with and learn knowledge being structured into different disciplines. But not all issues and problems could be clearly and unambiguously assigned to one and only one discipline. Some issues are multi disciplinary and do not belong to only one discipline. Especially new, emerging problems and complex socioscientific issues fell into the domain of several disciplines. Furthermore, the academic canon of disciplines is subject to continuous change. While it would be desirable if layperson would know who (which expert?) would be pertinent to which issue, it can be difficult asses which disciplines are more or less relevant for a theme. It is an open empirical question if secondary school students are able to identify disciplines which are pertinent to a complex scientific issue. Epistemological beliefs Research on epistemological beliefs, i.e. beliefs about the nature of knowledge and knowing, has expanded considerably in recent years (see, for overviews, Buehl & Alexander, 2001; Hofer & Pintrich, 1997, 2002). Epistemological beliefs include beliefs about the structure and variability of knowledge (Stahl & Bromme, 2007). We can assume that someone conceiving knowledge as static, (if it has been found once it will not be changed anymore) and as a collection of clear, but separated facts that could be “found”, would have less elaborated ideas about the pertinence of disciplines to issues. Naïve or better to say “straightforward” epistemological beliefs might come along with a less elaborated awareness about the possibility to have different kinds of knowledge about the same issue (object of reference). We assume that such a person might have less well elaborated ideas about the pertinence of disciplines to topics, because she or he might tend to identify the knowledge with its objects of reference. In contrast, a person holding more sophisticated beliefs about knowledge (i.e. conceiving knowledge as dynamic and interrelated and more constructed than “found” ) might have more elaborated ideas about the pertinence of disciplines to issues. Furthermore he or she might include more disciplines when asked which discipline might be pertinent to a certain topic. We expect therefore the following relationship between epistemological beliefs and judgments about the pertinence of disciplines to complex issues: Sophisticated epistemological beliefs go hand in hand with a better (more realistic) assessment of disciplines pertinence. Dealing with a complex scientific issue, sophisticated beliefs should foster the inclusion of various disciplines. Knowledge self-concept In informal settings it is necessary to have realistic metacognitive awareness of one’s own fragmentary understanding and to avoid the “illusion of explanatory depth” (Rosenblit & Keil, 2002). It is an open question if the self-assessed knowledge about the topic impacts on layperson’s assumptions about the pertinence of disciplines to complex scientific issues. Such an impact could be all the more probable as students self concept about their own knowledge differs between different school subjects. Even more, research on students’ self concepts has shown that students tend to overestimate the differences between their knowledge and abilities within different school subjects (Marsh & Hau, 2004). These findings of self-concept research argue for a cognitive and emotional impact of the disciplinary structure of school subjects on academic self concept, and as we conclude, they point to the possibility that the assessment of one’s own knowledge is relevant for judgments about the pertinence of disciplines to topics. There is broad evidence for gender differences in self-concept (e.g. Marsh & Craven, 1997; Jacobs et al., 2002). Dealing with knowledge in school context boys tends to have higher self-concepts in subjects like math, whereas girls show a higher self-concept in language arts. Dealing with a complex scientific issue with a main focus on natural science, male students are supposed to have higher knowledge self-concepts. It is an open empirical question if the self-assessed knowledge about a theme moderates the rating of discipline’s pertinence and if this is also influenced by gender.