1 INTRODUCTION For many years, educational researchers have maintained an interest in the effective prediction of students’ academic achievement in school. The prediction and explanation of academic achievement and the examination of the factors relating to the academic achievement are topics of greatest importance in different educational levels. Studies have shown that prior academic performance is an important predictor of performance in other levels of education. Similarly, cognitive ability was found as the strongest predictor of academic performance. However, some studies confirm that the correlation between cognitive ability and academic performance tends to decline as students progress in the educational system (Casis, 1995). Thus, many researchers have emphasized the need to include non-cognitive factors such as personality, motivation (Aquinas, 1990), gender, race, social class as well as aptitudes (Kerlinger, 1986) in investigations of individual differences in academic achievement.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
INTRODUCTION
For many years, educational researchers have maintained an interest in the effective
prediction of students’ academic achievement in school. The prediction and explanation of
academic achievement and the examination of the factors relating to the academic
achievement are topics of greatest importance in different educational levels. Studies have
shown that prior academic performance is an important predictor of performance in other
levels of education. Similarly, cognitive ability was found as the strongest predictor of
academic performance. However, some studies confirm that the correlation between
cognitive ability and academic performance tends to decline as students progress in the
educational system (Casis, 1995). Thus, many researchers have emphasized the need to
include non-cognitive factors such as personality, motivation (Aquinas, 1990), gender, race,
social class as well as aptitudes (Kerlinger, 1986) in investigations of individual differences
in academic achievement.
Researchers continue to investigate the sources of variance in academic achievement,
focusing on what students bring with them to school which either facilitate or hinder their
performance (Casis, 1995). Movements in contemporary education during the past few
decades, for instance, have considered the influence of other cognitive factors such as
x Innate Ability0.307 2.727** 0.007 0.048 7.437** 0.007
** highly significant at p < .01
Figure 8 shows the interaction of the moderating variable between the relationship of
the independent and the dependent variables. Students who have fathers who are college
graduates and whose beliefs in innate ability are sophisticated are likely to have improved
performance in Biology. On the other, those students who believe that knowledge
123
Figure 8. Interaction of father’s educational attainment to the relationship of innate ability and academic performance
is inborn and whose fathers are not college graduates are more likely to have lower
performance in Biology. This implies that in classroom where there are majority of students
who have fathers who are non-college graduates, structuring classroom activities to develop
mature belief in the innate ability may be done to facilitate enhancement of students’
performance in Biology.
On the basis of such outcome, it sounds fair to conclude that literacy and adult
education among parents in countries like the Philippines may collaterally contribute to
‘epistemological growth’ (or ‘epistemological sophistication’) of their respective children,
namely, by inculcating in them the perception that ability is not innate and that knowledge is
a result of the person’s own interaction to different sources of knowledge. This particular
result was congruent with Sitoe’s findings (2004) which also found on his study regarding
the intervention of family level of education on the beliefs of students on the authoritative
sources of knowledge, innate ability and on the simplicity of the learning process, that, it is
less likely to be found among those students whose parents have reached higher levels of
education.
124
Revised Diagram of Learning Style, Epistemological Beliefs and Academic Performance
The predictive influence of learning style and epistemological beliefs through
regression analysis have resulted to the revision of hypothesized diagram depicting the
hypothesized relationships among independent, dependent and moderator variables. Figure 9
shows the revised path diagram of students’ learning style and epistemological beliefs towards
students’ academic performance in Biology.
Figure 9. Revised path diagram of students’ learning style and epistemological beliefs toward their academic performance in Biology
Legend for Figure 9
The revision of hypothesized diagram to its new path diagram narrowed down the
predictors of academic performance of students in Biology into avoidant learning style and
Independent variables
Dependent variables
Academic Performance in Biology
EPISTEMOLOGICAL BELIEFS
Certainty of Knowledge
School Location
Omniscient Authority
Innate Ability
ICT Accessibility
Father’s Educational Attainment
LEARNING STYLES
Avoidant
predictorIndirect effectModerating effect
125
certainty of knowledge. On the other hand, hierarchical regression analysis revealed school
location directly influence the relationship of certainty of knowledge and students’ academic
performance in Biology, ICT accessibility and father’s educational attainment indirectly
influence the relationships between omniscient authority and students’ academic performance
in Biology and innate ability and students’ academic performance in Biology, respectively.
Socio-Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents
The socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents which include age, gender,
school, location, ICT accessibility, parents' educational background and parents' occupation
are presented with their respective data in graphical form.
Age
Figure 10 shows the age distribution of the respondents. The age of the respondents
ranged from 13 – 18 years old with the mean 14.12 and standard deviation of 0.63 (Appendix
E).
Figure 10. Age distribution of the respondents
126
The value of the standard deviation connotes that there is a small dispersion of age
among respondents. Majority of them are 14 years old (69.4%), the youngest respondents are
13 (10.2 %) and the oldest respondent is 18 years old or 0.7 %.
This result implies that most of the respondents started their schooling at the age of 6,
the age prescribed by the government to begin their education; hence, majority of the
respondents were 14 years old during their second year.
Gender
The distribution of gender of respondents is presented in Figure 11. The result
revealed that more than half (52.4%) or 77 are females and 70 or 47.6 % are males.
Enrolment for CLSU high schools showed that there were more females than males.
Figure 11. Gender distribution of respondents
127
This is in coherence with the studies earlier reported by Velasquez (2007), Mariano
(2005), and Inocencio (1997) whose respondents in CLSU and Muñoz National High School
were female dominated.
School Location
Figure 12 shows that majority of the respondents, 59.9 % or 88 are studying in rural
schools. The for reason being as such is that the three outreach schools, ULHS Bibiclat,
Palusapis and Pinili are located in the barrios in order to cater to the needs of those students
who live in the rural areas. Castro (1979) stated in his study that this way, these students need
not go to the town proper to continue their secondary education.
Figure 12.
Distribution of the respondents in rural and urban schools
A total of 40.1 % or 59 of the respondents disclosed that their schools are strategically
located in urban communities. These schools are those near the town proper and have access
128
to internet cafes, reading centers and established libraries.
ICT Accessibility
Figure 13 below shows the distribution of respondents on ICT accessibility. A total of
106 or 72.1 % of the respondents have access to basic information and communication
technologies such as internet, e-libraries, reading centers, and fully equipped libraries. These
students enjoy the benefit of ICT, mostly access information and communication technology
at home and not in school. Espino (2008) noted in her study about the ICT capability of
schools in Nueva Ecija that most of the student respondents obtain their experience of using
ICT from friends and classmates who bring them to nearby internet cafes.
A total of 41 or 27.9 %, however, revealed that they have limited or no access at all to
Figure 13. Distribution of the respondents who have access to ICT
129
these technologies. Espino’s (2008) study revealed that most high schools of Nueva Ecija,
had no appropriate master plan, time frame, budget plan and separate body for ICT, limited
access to ICT equipment, internet and landline connections. Students have limited access
and use of ICT equipment and rarely use ICT for school work.
Parents' Educational Attainment
For the educational attainment of the respondents' parents, Figure 14 shows that most of
the fathers, 38.8 % or 57 entered high school and finished their secondary education. A total of
55 or 37.4 %, on the other hand, had been in college and finished their degree. Twenty or 13.6 %
of the respondents' fathers attended graduate studies, 10 or 6.8% were elementary graduates and
only five or 3.4% of them obtained vocational courses.
Figure 14. Distribution of the parents’ educational attainment
Moreover, the result of the study further revealed that majority of the mothers of the
respondents, 64 or 43.5% enrolled and finished college. About 51 or 34.7% were high school
130
graduates. A total number of 22 or 15% attended graduate schooling and nine or 6.1% finished
their elementary education. Only one or 0.7% had vocational course.
Similar results for the father’s educational attainment is in coherence with the results
of respective studies of Mariano (2005), Leoveras (2001) and Inocencio (1997) who found
out that majority of the CLSU students’ fathers were high school graduates.
Parents' Occupation
The nature of work or job of the parents was classified into blue collar, white collar jobs
and non-earning. As shown in Figure 15, majority of the respondents' father occupation (106 or
72.1%) was blue collar job. Blue collar jobs are those occupations which entail manual and
physical application (Carbonel, 2008). These include barber, driver, plumber, vendor, worker,
cook and farmer among others. Only 39 or 26.5 % had fathers whose line of work is categorized
as white collar. White collar jobs include police, teacher, engineer, architect, researcher, food
scientist, nurse, government employee, veterinarian and other degree holders. Only two or 1.4%
were non-earning. These include pastor, jobless, or deceased. This result can be attributed to
their educational attainment wherein most of the fathers of the respondents finished secondary
education.
Figure 15. Distribution of the parents’ occupation
131
Most of the mothers, 65 or 44.2% were non-earning or plain housewives. A total of 42
or 28.6% had blue collar jobs whose line of work includes vendor, domestic helper, cook and
farmer. Forty of the mothers or 27.2% had white collar jobs. They were the professionals who
work as teacher, veterinarian, engineer, nurse, doctor, food scientists, etc. Although most of the
respondents’ mothers enrolled and finished college, majority still preferred to stay at home in
charge of household chores.
The result of this study is congruent with the studies of De Guzman (2005) and
Inocencio (1997) whose respondents’ (CLSU students) fathers had blue collar jobs or mostly
farmers and majority of mothers were plain housewives.
Monthly Family Income
Figure 16 shows the distribution of the respondents’ monthly family income. Family
income refers to the amount earned by all members of the family. It is usually the indicator of
the parents’ ability to fulfill the basic necessities of the family including their children’s
education. The mean monthly family income of the respondents was Php 25,957.82 with the
standard deviation of Php 45,551.93 (Appendix E). The 2007 report of the Department of
Labor and Employment states that the poverty line is about Php 17, 652.00 per month.
Figure 16. Distribution of respondents’ monthly family income
132
Majority of the respondents’ families (103 or 70.1%) had low family incomes while
only 44 or 29.9% of the respondents had high family income. This can be attributed to the
fact that most of the parents had blue collar jobs so their income was considerably much
lower than those with white collar jobs.
The National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) estimated in 2006 that the
poverty incidence in the country is equal to 32.9%. In other words, almost 33 out of 100
Filipinos are considered poor. The increase in poverty incidence is reported as caused by
scarcity of job opportunities, social and economic exclusion, and poor economic policies
(Molano, 2010).
The findings of this study are in coherence with the results of the studies of
Velasquez (2007), De Guzman (2005) and Mariano (2005) that majority of the Filipino
families have incomes just below the poverty line.
133
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary
This study was conducted to assess the epistemological beliefs and learning styles of
students for the SY 2009-2010 in Biology in the five high schools of Central Luzon State
University. This was also done to specifically determine the predictive ability and the
relationship of the respondents’ epistemological beliefs and learning styles to academic
performance. The influence of moderator variables such as respondents’ age, gender, school
location, ICT accessibility, parents’ educational attainment, parents’ occupation and family
income on the relationship between the respondents’ performance in Biology and their
epistemological beliefs and learning styles was also investigated in this study.
A total of 147 sophomore students of SY 2009-2010 from the five high schools of the
Central Luzon State University such as the University Laboratory High Schools Bibiclat,
Palusapis, Pinili, Agricultural Science and Technology School and the University Science
High School participated in this study. A survey questionnaire comprising of three parts such
as the Socio-Demographic Characteristics, Learning Styles Inventory developed by Grasha
and Reichmann and Epistemic Belief Inventory by Schraw et al. was used in this study. Data
were analyzed with descriptive statistics, correlational analysis and multiple regression
analysis using Statistica and SPSS.
The results of the study showed that that there were more collaborative (33.3%),
participants (25.2%) and dependent (21.1%) respondents with regard to their learning styles.
This prevailing behavior of being collaborative, participant and dependent were highly
134
attributed to the cultural context and much of educational reforms in the Philippine education
where there is a general shift of teacher-centered to student-centered setting.
As regards to their epistemological beliefs, most of the population (87.1% or 128) had
emergent belief in all of the dimensions of their epistemological beliefs. The most evident of
which is reflected in their beliefs in the “Quick Learning” and “Innate Ability” which showed
of 2.93 and 3.29, respectively. They were undecided as to whether knowledge is “in born”
or can be acquired through experience and knowledge is learnt quickly or not at all or can be
obtained gradually. On the other hand, majority of the respondents tended to show immature
or naïve responses with regard to the influence of the authority or the experts as most of them
still regard their teachers as the ultimate sources of information.
Majority of the respondents, about 73.4% or 108 were average performing students in
Biology. With regard to the relationship between the students’ learning styles and
epistemological beliefs, results revealed that independent learners had a tendency to have a
sophisticated belief in the simplicity of knowledge, in their innate ability and as well in the
speed of knowledge acquisition in Biology. Students who scored high on avoidant learning
styles are more likely to consider that ability is not innate and the learning is acquired
gradually. However, they tended to believe that knowledge is certain and evident when it
comes to Biology. The significant correlation between the collaborative learning style and
certainty of knowledge and innate ability may mean that learners who scored high on this
kind of learning style believe that knowledge is constantly evolving and that whatever
knowledge they have in Biology is a result of continuous experience. Dependent learning
style had a tendency to believe that knowledge is complex and uncertain as a result of their
135
own experience and tended to believe less in omniscient authority. Competitive learning style
had highly significant correlation with the beliefs of innate ability and quick learning and
participant learning style has highly significant correlation with the simplicity and certainty
of knowledge.
Meanwhile, a highly significant relationship was noted in the learning styles of the
respondents, such as participant (r=0.266, p<0.01), and collaborative (r=0.217, p<0.01) and
the students’ performance in Biology. Respondents’ whose learning styles such as participant
and collaborative had the tendency to earn high grades. A significant but negative correlation
was noted between the students’ avoidant learning style (r= -0.288, p<0.01) and their
performance in Biology. This suggested that students who practice avoidant learning style
had the tendency to earn lower grade in Biology.
Correlational analysis showed that there was significant relationship between
epistemological beliefs and academic performance of students. Findings revealed that
certainty of knowledge exerted influence on the students’ performance in Biology.
Regression analysis showed that avoidant learning style (β = -0.277, p<.01) and
certainty of knowledge (β = 0.203, p<.05) were identified as predictors of academic
performance in Biology. On the other hand, hierarchical regression analysis revealed that
none of the moderating variables moderated the relationship between the learning styles and
academic performance. However, the test revealed that school location had a direct effect on
the students’ belief in certainty of knowledge and academic performance (β = -0.295, p<.01).
ICT had an indirect effect on the omniscient authority belief and academic performance of
students (β = 0.340, p<.01) and father’s educational attainment indirectly affected the
136
relationship between the students’ belief in innate ability and academic performance
(β = 0.307, p<.01).
The results of the study revealed that the students of the five high schools of CLSU
are primarily female and majority of the respondents were 14 years old. A total of 59.9% or
88 participants were from rural schools and they had access to information and
communications technology. Fathers were mostly high school graduates while mothers were
college graduates. Most of these fathers, 72.1% or 106 had blue collar jobs, mostly farming
and many of them had low family incomes (70.1% or 103). The mothers (43.5% or 64), on
the other hand, despite, the occurrence of higher level of education, were mostly college
graduates but remained at home to attend to household chores.
Conclusion
On the basis of the results of this study, the following findings were noted:
1. Most respondents had preference on collaborating with their classmates than
competing with them; respondents were also found to be more participative learners
than avoidant; however, they tend to be more dependent on their teachers and
classmates than being independent when it comes to school activities;
2. With regard to the overall epistemological beliefs, majority of the respondents had
emergent or mixed beliefs about the nature of knowledge and the process of acquiring
knowledge. Only a small number of respondents had sophisticated beliefs. Most
respondents had a relative sophisticated belief about “Quick Learning” which means
that they assumed that learning is of gradual process that changes over a period of
137
time. They exhibited naïve belief, on the other hand, with Omniscient Authority in
which case they mostly believed that the teachers are utmost authority or sources of
knowledge in learning Biology. In general, students exhibited less sophisticated
beliefs, specifically in Simple Learning, Omniscient Authority, Certain Knowledge
and Innate Ability;
3. Most of the respondents were average performing students in Biology;
4. Independent learning style had highly significant positive relationship with the
students’ belief in simplicity of knowledge and innate ability and significant
relationship with quick learning. Avoidant learning style had high positive correlation
with quick learning and innate ability and significant but negatively correlated with
the students’ belief in the certainty of knowledge. Collaborative learning style had
high positive correlation with the certainty of knowledge and significantly related
with innate ability. Dependent learning style had highly significant and positive
relationship with the students’ beliefs in the simplicity and certainty of knowledge
and omniscient authority and was significantly correlated with innate ability.
Competitive learning styles, on the other hand, was highly correlated with the innate
ability and quick learning beliefs and significantly correlated with simple knowledge
beliefs of the students. Finally, participant learning style had highly significant
correlations with the students’ belief in simplicity and certainty of knowledge and the
omniscient authority.
138
5. Respondents who have collaborative and participant learning styles would tend to
perform better in Biology while those who exhibit avoidant learning styles were
found to have lower achievement in Biology.
6. The respondents’ epistemological beliefs on certainty of knowledge had significant
relationship with their performance in Biology.
7. Avoidant learning style and certainty of knowledge were identified as predictors of
academic performance in Biology.
8. None of the moderating variables moderated the relationship of learning style and
academic performance.
9. Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that school location had direct effect on the
relationship of students’ beliefs in certainty of knowledge and academic performance
while ICT had indirect effect on the omniscient authority beliefs and academic
performance of students and father’s educational attainment indirectly affect the
relationship between the students’ beliefs in innate ability and academic performance.
10. Most of the respondents are female, who were mostly 14 years old who studied in
rural school and had considerable access to information and communications
technology. Most of them had fathers who were high school graduates whose jobs
were mainly farming. Their mothers, though, mostly reached collegiate level, were
plain housewives.
Recommendations
Based on the results of this study, the following recommendations are made:
1. Teachers, principals, and policy makers should give enough importance to developing
139
students’ epistemological beliefs and learning styles throughout their formal
education. Trainings and workshops that would promote mature epistemological
beliefs (sophisticated) and more positive learning styles (independent, collaborative
and participant) should be arranged by the teachers to help develop the skills of their
students.
2. Students’ epistemological beliefs and learning style may be assessed to help the
teachers in designing effective classroom activities.
3. Future studies should consider the teacher’s epistemological beliefs and teaching style
and the relationship of these to students’ epistemological beliefs and learning styles.
4. To further investigate the students’ learning styles and epistemological beliefs, the
use of other instruments which entail qualitative data that can be gathered using inter-
views and observation to substantiate the discussion on students’ epistemological be-
liefs is suggested. In addition, it is suggested that more appropriate approaches in ana-
lyzing data like structure equation modeling should be used.
5. Longitudinal studies can be conducted to examine the change of students’ epistemo-
logical beliefs. This is to see whether change in epistemological beliefs can lead to
better performance in Biology.
140
LITERATURE CITED
ABDEL- MAJEED, U. M. & A. ISMAIL. 2005. Predicting Gifted EFL Students’ Goal Orientation, Cognitive Engagement, Perceived Linguistic Competence, and Achievement with Epistemological Beliefs. Journal of Minia Faculty of Education. The Journal of Educational Research, 92 (3), 52-75.
ADAMS, G. R., B. A. RYAN, L. KEATING & J. MIDGETT. 2000. Family climate, parent-child interactions about school issues, children’s characteristics and school achievement: A test of a family-school relationship model. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 132–143.
ALDRIDGE, J. M., B. J. FRASER & T. C. I. HUANG. 1999. Investigating classroom environments in Taiwan and Australia with multiple research methods. The Journal of Educational Research, 93(1), 48-62.
ALLIG, B. D. 2008. Learning styles and multiple intelligence of BSED students major in Biology of the three universities in Region III. Unpublished master’s thesis, Central Luzon State University, Science City of Munoz, Nueva Ecija, Philippines.
AQUINAS, M. S. 1990. Analysis of high school seniors' learning styles as they relate to student achievement and attribution in the science curriculum. Dissertation Abstracts International. 53: 1116A.
AYUSTE, L.V. & M. J. H. DURAN, 2009. Learning styles in Araling Panlipunan IV of the senior students of the University Laboratory High School– Palusapis S.Y. 2009-2010. Unpublished research. Department of English, ULHS-Palusapis. Science City of Munoz, Nueva Ecija.
BAKER, D. 2003. Equity issues in science education. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.). Inter-national Handbook of Science Education. London: Kluwer Academic.
BARBE, M. & A. S. MILONE. 1981. The impact of students' preferred learning style vari-ables in a distance education course: A case study. Portales: Eastern New Mexico University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 358 836).
141
BARNARD, L., 2007. Perceptions of online course communications and collaboration. On-line Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 10(4). http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter104/barnard104.html.
BAXTER MAGOLDA, M. B. 1992a. Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender-related patterns in students’ intellectual development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Contemporary Educational Psychol. 18: 210-250.
BAXTER MAGOLDA, M. B. 1993. Students’ epistemologies and academic experiences: Implications for pedagogy. Review of Higher Education, 15(3), 265-286.
BAXTER MAGOLDA, M. B. 1994. Teaching to promote holistic learning and development. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 82, 88-98.
BELENKY, M. F., B. M. CLINCHY, N. R. GOLDBERGER & J. M. TARULE. 1986. Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.
BENDIXEN, L. D., G. SCHRAW & M. E. DUNKLE. 1998. Epistemic beliefs and moral reasoning. The Journal of Psychology. 132: 187-200.
BERNARDO, A. B. I. 2003. Approaches to learning and academic achievement of Filipino students. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 164(1), 101-114.
BOEKAERTS, M. 1998. Do culturally rooted self-construal affect students’ conceptualization of control over learning? Educational Psychologist, 22 (2-3), 87-108.
BOUJAUDE, S. 1992. The relationship between students’ learning strategies and the change in their misunderstandings during a high school chemistry course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(7), 687-699.
BUEHL, M. M. & P. A. ALEXANDER. 2001. Beliefs about academic knowledge. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 385–418.
BUEHL, M. M., P. A. ALEXANDER & P. K. MURPHY. 2002. Beliefs about schooled knowledge: Domain general or domain specific. Contemporary Edu. Psychol. 27: 415-449.
CAMPBELL, J., J. BROWNLEE & D. SMITH. 1996. The differential impact of teachers’ approaches to teaching on secondary students’ approaches to learning. Education Research and Perspectives, 23(2), 95-111.
CANO, F. 2005. Epistemological beliefs and approaches to learning: Their changes through secondary school and their influence on academic performance. Br. J. Edu. Psychol., 75: 203-221.
CANO, F. 2007. Approaches to learning and study orchestrations in high school students. European Journal of Educational Psychology, 22, 131–151.
CANO, F. & M. CARDELLE-ELAWAR. 2008. Family environment, epistemological beliefs, learning strategies, and academic performance: A path analysis. Springer Journal of Educational Psychology, 19(2), 167–187.
CANO, F. & L. RODRIGUEZ (2008). Epistemological beliefs and approaches to learning: Their change through secondary school and their influence on academic performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 203–221.
CARBONEL, L. 2008. Teaching classroom management and learning styles as correlates of achievement in General Chemistry in Central Luzon State University. Unpublished masteral thesis. CLSU IGS, Science City of Muñoz.
CARSON, L. 1990. Cooperative learning in the home economics classroom. Journal of Home Economics, 82(4), 37-41.
CASIS, E. 1995. Learning styles, causal distribution and academic achievement among high school seniors from Notre Dame schools in Cotabato. Unpublished masteral thesis. Dela Salle University, Manila.
143
CASTRO, L. S. 1979. Follow – up study of the first graduates of Central Luzon State Uni-versity Barrio Development School. Research and Development. Central Luzon State University, Nueva Ecija.
CASTRO, O. & V. PECK. 2005. Learning styles and foreign language learning difficulties. Foreign Language Annals (38) 3: 401-409.
CAVALLO, A. M. L. 1996. Meaningful learning, reasoning ability, and students’ understanding and problem solving of topics in genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(6), 625-656.
CAVALLO, A. M. L., M. ROZMAN, J. BLICKENSTAFF & N. WALKER. 2003. Learning, reasoning, motivation, and epistemological beliefs: Differing approaches in college science courses. Journal of College Science Teaching, 33(3), 18-23.
CHAN, K. & R. G. ELLIOTT. 2002. Exploratory study of Hong Kong teacher education students’ epistemological beliefs: Cultural perspectives and implications on beliefs research. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(3), 392-414.
CHANDLER, M. J., D. HALLETT & B. W. SOKOL 2002. Competing claims about com-peting knowledge claims. In P.R. Pintrich (Ed.), Personal epistemology: The psy-chology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 347-364). Mahwah, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
CHENG, R. C. 1994. Classroom environment and student affective performance: An effective profile. Journal of Experimental Education, 62(3), 221-240.
CONLEY, A. M., P. R. PINTRICH, I. WEKIRI & D. HARRISON. 2004. Changes in epistemological beliefs in elementary science students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 186-204.
CONLEY, A.M., P.R. PINTRICH, I. VEKIRI, & D. HARRISON. 2004. Changes in epistemological beliefs in elementary science students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 186 - 204.
144
COOL, V. A., & T. Z. KEITH. 1991. Testing a model of school learning: Direct and indirect effects on academic achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 16, 28–44.
DART, B., P. BURNETT, N. PURDIE, G. BOULTON-LEWIS, J. CAMPBELL & D. SMITH. 2000. Students’ conceptions of learning, the classroom environment, and approaches to learning. The Journal of Educational Research, 94(3), 263-270.
DAUGHENBAUGH, B. 1985. Adult college student's preferences for teaching styles (Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1985). Dissertation Abstracts International. 46-12A: 3567.
DAVID, E. S. 1999. The effects of Filipino medium of instruction on the academic performance in Botany 100 laboratory. Unpublished masteral thesis. IGS CLSU, Science City of Muñoz.
DAVID, E. S. 2008. Students conceptual understanding and epistemological belief of plant cellular respiration in a constructivist learning environment. Unpublished dissertation. Dela Salle University, Manila.
DAVIS, R. B., C. A. MAHLER & N. NODDINGS 1990. Constructivist views on the teaching and learning of mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education by National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
DE GUZMAN, A. 2005. Attributions, learning styles and attitudes as correlates of achievement of General Chemistry students in Central Luzon State University. Unpublished masteral thesis. IGS CLSU, Science City of Muñoz, Nueva Ecija.
DIAZ, D. P. & R. B. CARTNAL. 1999. Students' learning styles in two classes: Online distance learning and equivalent on-campus. College Teaching 47(4): 130-135.
DISETH, A. & O. MARTINSEN. 2003. Approaches to learning, cognitive style, and motives as predictors of academic achievement. Educational Psychology, 23(2), 195-207.
145
DORSEY, O. & M. PIERSON. 1984. A descriptive study of adult learning style in a nontraditional education program. Lifelong Learning, 7(8): 8-11.
DRYSDALE, M. T., P. ROSS & R. A. SCHULZ. 2001. “Cognitive learning styles and academic performance in 19 First-year university courses: Successful students versus students at risk.” Journal of Education for Students At Risk 6. 3: 271- 289.
DUELL, O. K. & M. SCHOMMER-AIKENS. 2001. Measures of people’s beliefs about knowledge and learning. Educational Psychology Review. 13(4): 419-449.
DUNN, R. & S. A. GRIGGS. 1995. Multiculturalism and Learning Styles: Teaching and Counseling adolescents. Westport, CT: Praeger.
DUNN, R., S. GRIGGS, J. OLSEN, M. BEASLEY & B. GORMAN. 1995. A meta-analysis validation of the Dunn and Dunn model of learning style preferences. Journal of Educational Research.
EGGEN, N. & C. KAUCHAK. 1994. Styles of Learning and Teaching; an integrated outline of educational psychology for students, teachers and lecturers. Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
ELBY, A. 2001. Defining personal epistemology: A response to Hofer & Pintrich (1997) and Sandoval (2005). Journal of the Learning Sciences. 18: 138-149.
ELDER, A. D. 1999. An exploration of fifth grade students’ epistemological beliefs in science and an investigation of their relation to science learning. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(05), 1449
ELEY, M. G. 1992. Differential adoption of study approaches within individual students. Higher Education, 23(3), 231-254.
ETNTWISTLE, N. J. & P. RAMSDEN, 1983. Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
146
ETNWISTLE, N. J. 1991. Approaches to learning and perceptions of the learning environment: Introduction to the special issue. Higher Education, 22(3), 201-204.
ENWISTLE, N. J., & H. TAIT, 1990. Approaches to learning, evaluations of teaching, and
preferences for contrasting academic environments. Higher Education, 19(2), 169-194.
ESPINO, Z. P. 2008. Use of information and communication technology in public high schools in Nueva Ecija. Unpublished dissertation. IGS Central Luzon State University. Science City of Munoz, Nueva Ecija.
FISHER, M. & D. E. BAIRD, 2005. Online learning design that fosters student support, self-regulation, and retention. Campus-wide Information Systems, 22(2), 88-107.
GERLACH, J. M. 1994. "Is this collaboration?" In Bosworth, K. and Hamilton, S. J. (Eds.), Collaborative Learning: Underlying Processes and Effective Techniques, New Directions for Teaching and Learning No. 59.
GRASHA, A. F. 1996. Teaching with style. Pittsburgh, PA: Alliance.
GRASHA-RIECHMANN, S. & A. F. GRASHA. 1996. The Grasha-Riechmann student learning style scales. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Journal. 22, 122-142
GREENE, J. A., R. AZEVEDO & R. HANCOCK. 2003. Embedding personal epistemology research with academic self-efficacy and academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology Review. 35, 160-183
GREGORC, A. F. 1978. Transaction ability inventory. Connecticut, Columbia: Gregorc Associates. Vol 40, 151-183
GRIGGS, S. & R. DUNN. 1996. Hispanic-American students and learning style. East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. ERIC. Document Reproduction Service no. ED 393607.
147
HAMMER, D. 1994. Epistemological beliefs in introductory physics. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 151-183.
HAYCOCK, K. 2001. Closing the achievement gap. Educational Leadership, 58, 6, 6-11. WilsonWeb July 16, 2001.
HAYES, J. & C. W. ALLINSON. 1997. ‘Learning styles and training and development: lessons from educational research’, Educational Psychology. 15, 160-190
HEWSON, S. S. 1985. Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology. 83(1): 73-87.
HOFER, B. K. & P. R. PINTRICH. 1997. The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research. 67 (1): 88-140.
HOFER, B. K. 1999. Personal epistemology research: Implications for learning and teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology Review. 13(4): 353-383.
HOFER, B. K. 2005. Personal epistemology as a psychological construct and educational construct: An introduction. In B. K. Hofer and P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology. . Journal of Educational Psychology. 87(3): 92-105
HOFER, B. K. 2006. Domain specificity of personal epistemology: Resolved questions, persistent issues, new models psychology department. Int. J. Edu. Res. 45: 85-95.
ICKENS, W. & M. A. LAYDEN. 1978. Attributional Styles. In J. Harvey, W. Ickes, and R Kidd (Eds), New Directions in attribution research (volume , p. 119-151), NJ: Lawrence Elbaum.
INOCENCIO, R. F. 1997. Factors affecting the academic performance of CLSU CAT non-qualifiers. Unpublished masteral thesis, Central Luzon State University, Science City of Munoz, Nueva Ecija, Philippines.
148
JOHNSON, B. & R. MCCLURE. 2004. Validity and reliability of a shortened, revised version of the constructivist learning environment survey (CLES). Learning Environments Research, 7, 65-80.
JOHNSON, D. W. & R. T. JOHNSON. 1987. Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. pp 89-102
JOHNSON, D. W. & R. T. JOHNSON. 1991. Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic. Third Edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. pp.39-50
JOHNSON, D. W., R. T. JOHNSON & E. J. HOLUBEC. 1986. Circles of learning: Cooperation in the classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. pp.39-50
KAGAN, S. 1994. Cooperative learning. San Clemente, CA: Kagan Publications.
KAHLE, J. B. & J. MEECE. 1994. Research on gender issues in the classroom. In D. Gabel (Eds.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp.13-39).
KAIN, D. J. 2003. Teacher-Centered versus Student-Centered: Balancing Constraint and Theory in the Composition Classroom. Pedagogy. 3(1), 104-108.
KARDASH, C. A. M. & K. L. HOWELL. 2000. Effect of epistemological beliefs on topics-specific beliefs on undergraduates’ cognitive and strategic processing of dual-positional text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(3), 524–535.
KARDASH, C. M. & R. J. SCHOLES. 1996. Effects of preexisting beliefs, epistemological beliefs, and need for cognition on interpretation of controversial issues. Journal of Educational Psychology. 88(2): 260-271.
KEMBER, D. 2001. Beliefs about knowledge and the process of teaching and learning as a factor in adjusting to study in higher education. Studies in Higher Education. 26(2): 205-221.
149
KERLINGER, F. 1986. Foundations of Behavioral Research. 3rd Edition. NY: Holt, Rinehart, Winston.
KING, P. M. & K. S. KITCHENER. 1994. The reflective judgment model: Twenty years of research on epistemic cognition. In B. K. Hofer and P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum. (pp. 37-61)
KING, P. M. 2000. Learning to make reflective judgments. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, Journal of Educational Psychology. 82: 15-26.
KIZILGÜNEŞ, B. 2007. Predictive influence of students’ achievement motivation, meaningful learning approach and epistemological beliefs on classification concept achievement. Unpublished Master Thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
KOLB, D. A. 1984. Experimental learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
KOLB, D. A. 1986. Learning style inventory: Technical manual (Rev. ed.). Boston, MA: McBer.
KUHN, D. & M. WEINSTOCK. 2000. What is epistemological thinking and why does it matter?. New Jersey: Erlbaum. pp: 66-75
KUHN, D. 1991. The Skills of Argument. 1st Edn., New York: Cambridge University Press, ISBN-10: 052142349X.
LAROCHELLE, M. & J. DESAUTELS. 1991. “Of course it is obvious”: Adolescents’ ideas of scientific knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 13, 373-389.
LAURILLARD, D. 1994. Process of student learning. Higher Education 8: Elsevier Publishing Company. Amsterdam.
150
LEDERMAN, N. & M. DRUGER. 1985. Classroom factors related to changes in students’ conceptions of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22, 649-662.
LEOVERAS, M. C. 2001. Student's learning modalities, teachers' teaching strategies and academic performance of CFY students in General Botany and General Zoology. Unpublished masteral thesis. IGS CLSU, Science City of Muñoz.
LEROY, C. & B. SYMES. 2001. Teachers’ perspectives on the family backgrounds of children at risk. McGill Journal of Education, 36, 1, 45-60. WilsonWeb July 9, 2001.
LIM, C. & J. TORR. 2007. Singaporean early childhood teachers’ beliefs about literacy development in a multilingual context. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education. 35(4): 409-434.
LODEWYK, K. R. 2007. Relations among epistemological beliefs, academic achievement, and task performance in secondary school students. Educational Psychology, 27(3), 307-327.
LOGAN, K. & P. THOMAS. 2002. Learning styles in distance education students learning to program. In Kuljis, J., Baldwin, L. & Scoble, R. (Eds) Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Workshop of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group Pp. 29 – 44. The University of Kent, Canterbury, England.
MARIANO, A. 2005. Student factors affecting the teaching style preference in General Biology. Unpublished masteral thesis. IGS CLSU, Science City of Muñoz.
MARTIN, N. K. & Z. N. YIN. 1999. Beliefs regarding classroom management style: Differences between urban and rural secondary level teachers. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 15(2), 101-105.
MARY, O. 2010. Competition in Classroom. Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
151
MASON, N. A. & D. BOSCOLO. 2004. Epistemological understanding in different judgment domains: Relationship with gender, grade level and Curriculum. Int. J. Edu. Res., 45: 43-56.
MCCARTHY, B. 1985. What 4-mat training teaches us about staff development. Educa-tional Leadership. 42(7): 61-68.
MOEMEKA, A. A. 1996. Interpersonal communication in communalistic societies in Africa. In W.B. Gudykunst, S. Ting-Toomey, & T. Nishida (Eds.), Communication in personal relationships across cultures (pp. 197-216). London: Sage.
MOLANO, W. B. L. 2010. Measuring poverty in the Philippines using equivalised household income. Unpublished special problem of Institute of Statistics, University of the Philippines, Los Baños, Laguna.
MOORE, W. S. 2002. Understanding learning in a postmodern world: Re-considering the Perry scheme of intellectual and ethical develop-ment. In B. K. Hofer and P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 37 61). Mah-wah, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
MUIS, K. R. 2004. Personal epistemology and mathematics: A critical review and synthesis of research. Review of Educational Research. 74(3): 317-377.
NISBET, S. & P. GRIMBEEK. 2004. Primary teachers’ beliefs and practices with respect to compulsory numeracy testing. Paper presented in MERGA 2004 annual confer-ence.
PANITZ, T. 1996. A Definition of Collaborative vs Cooperative Learning. Wisconsin Center for Education Research. Cooperative Learning. U.S. Dept. of Ed. Office of Research.
PAULSEN, M. B. & K. A. FELDMAN. 1999. Epistemological beliefs and self-regulated learning. Journal of Staff Programming and Organizational Development. 16: 83-91.
152
PAULSEN, M. B. & K.A. FELDMAN. 1999. Student motivation and epistemological beliefs. New Directions for Teaching and Learning. 78: 17-25.
PEI, D. N. 2004. The development and modernization of basic education in China. Peking University Education Review. 2: 63-69.
PERRY, W. G. 1970. Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
PHAN, H. P. 2008a. Multiple regression analysis of epistemological beliefs, learning approaches, and self-regulated learning. Elect. J. Res. Edu. Psychol. 6: 157-184.
PHILBIN, M., E. MEIER, S. HUFFMAN & P. BOVERIE. 1995. A survey of gender and learning styles. Sex Roles: A journal of Research. (32), 7-8: April 1995.
PIESCHL, S., E. STAHL & R. BROMME, 2007. Epistemological beliefs and self-regulated learning with hypertext. Metacognition Learning, 3, 17-37.
PINTRICH, P. R. 2002. The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts & P. R. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation (pp. 451-502). San Diego: Academic Press.
PIZZO, J., R. DUNN & K. DUNN. 1990. A sound approach to reading: Responding to students’ learning styles. Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities International. 6(3): 249-260.
QIAN, G. & D. ALVERMANN. 1995. Role of epistemological beliefs and learned helplessness in secondary school students’ learning science concepts from test. Journal of Educational Psychology. 87: 282-292.
RAMSDEN, P. 1979. Student learning and perceptions of the academic environment. Higher Education, 8(4), 411-427.
153
ROTH, G. & S. ROYCHOUDURY. 1997. Beyond expertise: theory, practice and the reflexive practitioner. Journal of Education Review. 6(2): 93-107.
RUKAVINA, I. & M. DANEMAN. 1996. Integration and its effect on acquiring knowledge about competing scientific theories from text. Journal of Educational Psychology. 88(2): 272-287.
RYAN, A. G. 1984. Monitoring text comprehension: Individual differences in epistemological standards. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(2), 248-258.
RYAN, B. A. & G. R. ADAMS. 1995. The family-school relationships model. In B. A. Ryan, G. R. Adams, T. P. Gullotta, R. P. Weissberg, & R. L. Hampton (Eds.), The family-School Connection: Theory, Research, and Practice (pp. 3–28). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. pp: 215-265
RYAN, M. P. 1984. Monitoring text comprehension: Individual differences in epistemological standards. Journal of Educational Psychology. 76(2): 248-258.
SADLER-SMITH, E. 1996. Approaches to studying: Age, gender and academic performance. Educational Studies, 22(3), 367-380.
SANTOS, J. P. 2008. Learning styles and academic performance in Biology of high school students. Unpublished research. CLSU IGS, Science City of Muñoz.
SARASIN, L. C. 1998. Learning Style Perspectives: Impact in the Classroom. Madison, WI: Atwood. pp: 122-145
SCHOMMER, M . 1994a. An emerging conceptualization of epistemological beliefs and their role in learning. In R. Garner & P.A. Alexander (Eds.), Beliefs about text and instruction with text (pp. 25-40). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
SCHOMMER, M. 1994b. Comparisons of beliefs about the nature of knowledge and learning among post-secondary students. Research in Higher Education. 34(3): 355-371.
154
SCHOMMER, M. 1993. Epistemological development and academic performance among secondary students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 406–411.
SCHOMMER, M. 1990. Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 498–504.
SCHOMMER, M. 1988. Students’ beliefs about the nature of knowledge: What are they and how do they affect comprehension? Cambridge, MA: Illinois University, Urbana Center for the Study of Reading Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc.
SCHOMMER, M, S. BROOKHART, R. HUTTER, & W. C. MAU, 2000. Understanding middle students’ beliefs about knowledge and learning using a multidimensional paradigm. The Journal of Educational Research, 94(2), 120-127.
SCHOMMER, M. & R. HUTTER. 2002. Epistemological beliefs and thinking about everyday controversial issues. The Journal of Psychology, 136(1), 5-21.
SCHOMMER, M., A. CROUSE & N. RHODES. 1992. Epistemological beliefs and math-ematical text comprehension: Believing it is simple does not make is so. Journal of Educational Psychology. 84(4): 435-43.
SCHOMMER, M., C. CALVERT, G. GARIGLIETTI, & A. BAJAJ, 1997. The development of epistemological beliefs among secondary students: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 37–40.
SCHOMMER-AIKINS, M. & P. WALKER. 1997. Explaining the epistemological belief system: Introducing the embedded systemic model and coordinated research approach. Educational Psychologist. 39(1): 19-29.
SCHOMMER-AIKINS, M. 2002. An evolving theoretical framework for epistemological belief system. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
SCHOMMER-AIKINS, M. 2004. Explaining the epistemological belief system: Introduc-ing the embedded systemic model and coordinated research approach. Educational psychologist. 39: 19-29.
155
SCHOMMER-AIKINS, M. & M. EASTER, 2006. Ways of knowing and epistemological beliefs: Combined effect on academic performance. Educational Psychology, 26(3), 411-423.
SCHOMMER-AIKINS, M., P. DUELL & R. HUTTER. 2005. Epistemological beliefs and thinking about everyday controversial issues. The Journal of Psychology. 136(1): 5-21.
SCHRADER, D. E. 2004. Intellectual safety, moral atmosphere and epistemology in college classrooms. Journal of Adult Development, 11(2): 87-101.
SCHRAW, G., L. D. BENDIXEN & M. E DUNKLE. 2002. Development and validation of the Epistemological Beliefs Inventory (EBI). In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. (pp.261- 275). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
SCHRAW, G., M. E. DUNKLE & L. D. BENDIXEN. 1995. Cognitive processes in well-defined and ill-defined problem-solving. Applied Cognitive psychology. 9: 523-538.
SITOE, A. 2004. Self-regulated learning and learning strategies: Tools for lifelong learning. In P. Boele van Hensbroek, & H. Schoenmakers (Eds.), from social exclusion to lifelong learning in Southern Africa. CDS Research Report Nr. 21 (pp.51-64).
SOLOMON, J., J. DUVEEN & L. SCOTT, 1994. Pupils’ images of scientific epistemology. International Journal of Science Education, 16(3), 361-373.
SONGER, N. B., & M. C. LINN, 1991. How do students’ views of science influence knowledge integration? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 761-784.
STERNBERG, R. J. & D. G. GRIGORENKO. 1997. Thinking Styles. Cambridge, U. K.; NY, NY: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved on August 2007 from: Http://www.ascd.org/educationnews/eric/miabs.html
156
STERNBERG, R. J. 1997. Talking About Leaving: Factors Contributing to High Attrition Rates Among Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Undergraduate Majors. Boulder, CO: Bureau of Sociological Research.
TANNER, K., L. S. CHATMAN & D. ALLEN. 2003. Approaches to Cell Biology Teaching: Cooperative Learning in the Science Classroom—Beyond Students Working in Groups. The American Society for Cell Biology. Cell Biol Educ. 2003 Spring; 2: 1–5.
TENG, X. 2003. Ethnic groups, cultural diversities and diversification of school curriculum. Jiangsu Social Science, 3: 24-29.
TEO, S. 2002. Preferred learning styles and perception of learning in group work assessment. UTS Teaching and Learning Forum. Singapore
TRAUTWEIN, U. & O. LUDTKE. 2007. Epistemological beliefs, school achievement, and college major: A large scale longitudinal study on the impact of certainty beliefs. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 348-366.
TRIGWELL, K. & M. PROSSER. 1991. Improving the quality of student learning: the influence of learning context and student approaches to learning on learning outcomes. Higher Education, 22, 251-266.
TSAI, C. C. & S. C. CHUANG. 2005. The correlation between epistemological beliefs and preferences toward Internet-based learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(1), 97-100.
TSAI, C. C. 1998b. An analysis of Taiwanese eight graders’ science achievement, scientific epistemological beliefs and cognitive structure outcomes after learning basic atomic theory. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 413-425.
TSAI, C. C. 2000a. The effects of STS-oriented instruction on female tenth graders’ cognitive structure outcomes and the role of student scientific epistemological beliefs. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 1029-1115.
157
VELASQUEZ, J. V. 2007. Teaching and Learning Styles and Academic Performance of High School Students in Mathematics, English and Science and Technology. Unpublished masteral thesis. CLSU IGS, Science City of Muñoz.
WALKER, J. & C. SMREKAR. 2001. Parenting - High-risk Neighborhoods, influence of parents' level of education, influence on child's educational aspirations and attainment. Psychological Bulletin 113:487–496.
WEITEN, W. 1998. Pressure, major life events, and psychological symptoms. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 13, 51-64.
WITKIN, H., G. MOORE, D. GOODENOUGH & P. COX, 1977. Field-dependent and field- independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research. 47: 1 – 64.
WOOD, P. K., & C. A. KARDASH, 2002. Critical elements in the design and analysis of studies of epistemology. In B K. Hofer & Paul R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 231–260). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
ZHU, Y. 2003. The cultural causation of the differences of the urban and rural economy de-velopment of China. Exploring. 3: 24-32.
158
APPENDICES
159
APPENDIX A – Sample Questionnaire
Republic of the PhilippinesCENTRAL LUZON STATE UNIVERSITY
Science City of Munoz
INSTITUTE OF GRADUATE STUDIES
Epistemological Beliefs, Learning Styles and Academic Performance of Biology Students in Five High Schools of Central Luzon State University
General Direction: Please supply the information needed by putting a mark on the box or write down your answers wherever feasible.
Name: ____________________(optional) Year and Section_______ Code No. ______
Part I. SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
Direction: Please supply the needed information by putting a check mark in the space provided before each statement or write down your answer(s) on the blank after each statement.
Age _________ Final grade in biology ______ Gender ( ) male ( ) female School Location ( ) rural ( ) urbanICT Accessibility ( ) accessible Family Income: ___________________
( ) non-accessibleParents’ Educational BackgroundFather: ( ) elementary graduate ( ) high school graduate ( ) college graduate ( ) college graduate with MA/MS units ( ) MS/MA graduate ( ) with Ph.D./EdD. units ( ) Ph.D/Ed.D. graduate
Mother: ( ) elementary graduate ( ) high school graduate ( ) college graduate ( ) college graduate with MA/MS units ( ) MS/MA graduate
Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement to the following statements. If you strongly agree, for example, write the number 5 in the blank provided on the left.
strongly disagree
moderately disagree
undecided moderately agree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
________1. It bothers me when biology teachers don't tell students the answers to complicated biology problems.
________2. Truth in Biology means different things to different people.
________3. Students who learn things quickly in biology are the most successful.
________4. Students should always obey the law inside biology classroom.
________5. Some students in biology will never be smart no matter how hard they work.
________6. Absolute moral truth does not exist in biology.
________7. Teachers should teach their students all there is to know about biology.
________8. Really smart students don't have to work as hard to do well in biology.
________9. If a student tries too hard to understand a problem in biology, he will most likely end up being confused.
________10. Too many theories in biology just complicate things.
________11. The best ideas in biology are often the simplest ones.
________12. Students can't do too much about how smart they are in biology.
161
________13. Biology teachers should focus on facts instead of theories.
________14. I like biology teachers who present several competing theories and let their students decide which is best.
________15. How well you do in biology depends on how smart you are.
________16. In biology, if you don't learn something quickly, you won't ever learn it.
________17. Some students in biology class just have a knack for learning and others don't.
________18. Some biology concepts are simpler than most biology teachers would have you believe.
________19. If two students are arguing about something in a biology class, at least one of them must be wrong.
________20. In a biology class, students should be allowed to question their teachers' authority.
________21. If you haven't understood a lesson in biology the first time through, going back over it won't help.
________22. Biology is easy to understand because it contains so many facts.
________ 23. The moral rules in Biology I live by apply to everyone in the class.
________ 24. In biology, the more you know about a topic, the more there is to know.
________ 25. What is true today in biology will be true tomorrow.
________ 26. Smart students in biology are born that way.
________ 27. When a biology teacher tells me what to do, I usually do it.
________ 28. Students who question biology teachers are trouble makers.
________ 29. Working on a problem in biology with no quick solution is a waste of time.
162
________ 30. You can study biology concepts for years and still not really understand them.
________ 31. Sometimes there are no right answers to biology's big problems.
________32. Some students are born with special gifts and talents in biology.
Part III. LEARNING STYLES
Direction: The following questionnaire has been designed to help you clarify your attitudes and feelings toward learning in high school. There is no right or wrong answer to each question. However, as you answer each question, form your answer with regard to your personal attitudes and feelings towards Science subject.
Please respond to the items listed below by putting a check mark under the following scale:
Use a rating scale 1, if you strongly disagree with the statement.Use a rating scale 2, if you moderately disagree with the statement.Use a rating scale 3, if you are undecided with the statement.Use a rating scale 4, if you moderately agree with the statement.Use a rating scale 5, if you strongly agree with the statement.
Statement 1 2 3 4 51. I prefer to work by myself on assignments in my Biology class. 2. I often daydream during Biology class. 3. Working with other students on class activities is something I enjoy doing in my Biology class. 4. I want my Biology teacher to state exactly what he expects from the students. 5. To do well, it is necessary to compete with other students for my Biology teacher’s attention. 6. I do whatever is asked of me to learn in my Biology class. 7. My ideas about Biology lessons often are as good as those in the textbook. 8. Classroom activities in Biology are usually boring. 9. I enjoy discussing my ideas about Biology with other students. 10. I rely on my Biology teacher to tell me what is important for me to learn. 11. It is necessary to compete with other students to get a good grade in Biology class. 12. I find that Biology class is worth attending. 13. I study what is important to me and not always what
163
my Biology teacher says is important. 14. I very seldom am excited about material covered in Biology. 15. I enjoy hearing what other students think about issues raised in Biology class. 16. I want clear and detailed instructions in Biology on how to complete assignments. 17. In Biology class, I must compete with other students to get my ideas across. 18. I get more out of going to Biology class than staying at home. 19. I learn a lot of Biology on my own. 20. I don't want to attend my Biology class. 21. Students should be encouraged to share more of their ideas with each other in Biology class.22. I complete assignments in Biology exactly the way my Biology teacher tells me to do them. 23. Students have to be aggressive to do well in Biology class. 24. It is my responsibility to get as much as I can out of my Biology class. 25. I feel very confident about my ability to learn on my own in Biology. 26. Paying attention during Biology class is difficult for me to do. 27. I like to study for tests in Biology with other students. 28. Trying to decide what to study or how to do assignments in Biology makes me uncomfortable. 29. I like to solve problems or answer questions in Biology before anybody else can. 30. Classroom activities in Biology class are interesting. 31. I like to develop my own ideas about Biology lesson. 32. I have given up trying to learn anything from going to Biology class. 33. Biology classes make me feel like part of a team where people help each other learn. 34. Students should be more closely supervised by Biology teachers in doing Biology projects. 35. To get ahead in Biology class, it is necessary to step on the toes of other students. 36. I try to participate as much as I can in all activities in Biology. 37. I have my own ideas about how Biology classes
164
should be run. 38. I study just hard enough to get by in Biology. 39. An important part of studying Biology is learning to get along with other people. 40. My notes contain almost everything the teacher said in my Biology class. 41. Being one of the best students in my Biology class is very important to me. 42. I do all assignments in Biology well whether or not I think they are interesting. 43. If I like a topic in Biology, I try to find out more about it on my own. 44. I typically cram for exams in Biology. 45. Learning the lessons in Biology is a cooperative effort between students and teachers. 46. I prefer Biology lessons that are highly organized. 47. To stand out in my Biology class, I complete assignments better than other students. 48. I typically complete assignments in Biology before their deadlines. 49. I prefer to work on class projects and assignments in Biology by myself. 50. I would prefer that my Biology teacher ignores me in class. 51. I am willing to help other students out when they do not understand something in Biology. 52. Students should be told exactly what topics are to be covered on Biology exams. 53. I like to know how well other students are doing on exams and assignments in Biology. 54. I complete required assignments in Biology as well as those that are optional. 55. When I don't understand something in Biology, I first try to figure it out for myself. 56. During Biology class, I tend to socialize with people sitting next to me. 57. I enjoy participating in small group activities during Biology class. 58. I want Biology teachers to have outlines or notes on the board. 59. I want my Biology teacher to give me more recognition for the good work I do. 60. In my Biology class, I often sit toward the front of the room.
165
166
APPENDIX B – Letter to the Principal
Republic of the PhilippinesCENTRAL LUZON STATE UNIVERSITY
Science City of Muñoz Nueva Ecija
INSTITUTE OF GRADUATE STUDIES
14 June 2010
Prof. MA. ROSIE S. MANANGAN School Principal, ULHS-PalusapisScience City of Munoz, Nueva Ecija
Madam:
The undersigned is a Master of Science in Biology Education student at the Institute of Graduate Studies in Central Luzon State University. He is due to conduct his research this coming school year entitled, Epistemological Beliefs, Learning Styles and Academic Performance of Biology Students in Five High Schools of Central Luzon State University as partial fulfillment of the requirements for masteral degree.
Relative to this, he would like to humbly request your office to allow him to distribute the survey questionnaires to the sophomore students in your school for SY 2009-2010. Rest assured that the information gathered will be kept confidential
Thank you and more power!
Sincerely yours,
JOHN PAUL E. SANTOS Researcher
Noted:
167
EDEN S. DAVID, Ph.D. Thesis Adviser
168
APPENDIX C – Sample of student’s permanent record
169
APPENDIX D – Epistemological Beliefs and Learning StylesProfiles of respondents
Appendix Table 1. Epistemological beliefs held by the sophomore high school students in Biology
Epistemological BeliefFrequency(N=147)
Percentage%
Emergent 128 87.1Naive 17 11.6Sophisticated 2 1.4
Appendix Table 2. Learning styles of sophomore high school students