Explaining the Epistemological Belief System: Introducing the Embedded Systemic Model and Coordinated Research Approach
解釋認識論信仰系統：引入嵌入式系統模型和協調研究方法

The study of personal epistemology was originally based on in-depth interviews, thick descriptions of student responses, and well-elaborated stage schemes of epistemological development. This research began with Perry (1968) studying Harvard undergraduates. Many researchers who advanced Perry’s work continued to use interviews and continued to use thick descriptions of personal epistemology development (Baxter Magolda, 1992, 1998; Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986; King & Kitchener, 1994). In 1990 I introduced the idea that personal epistemology be considered a system of more-or-less independent beliefs (Schommer, 1990). The purpose of this article is to describe the proposed epistemological belief system, present some of the rationale behind the proposition, and offer new thoughts to a systemic approach to personal epistemology.
個人認識論的研究最初是基於深入的訪談、對學生反應的詳盡描述以及精心設計的認識論發展階段方案。這項研究始於 Perry （1968） 研究哈佛本科生。許多推進佩里工作的研究人員繼續使用訪談，並繼續使用對個人認識論發展的厚重描述（Baxter Magolda，1992,1998;Belenky， Clinchy， Goldberger， & Tarule， 1986;King & Kitchener，1994年）。1990年，我提出了個人認識論應該被視為一個或多或少獨立的信仰體系的想法（Schommer，1990）。本文的目的是描述所提出的認識論信仰體系，提出該命題背後的一些基本原理，併為個人認識論的系統方法提供新的想法。

The study of personal epistemology began with the work of William Perry, Jr. (1968), whose research team interviewed Harvard undergraduates over their four-year college experi-
個人認識論的研究始於 William Perry， Jr. （1968） 的工作，他的研究團隊在四年的大學經歷中採訪了哈佛本科生。

ence. Perry concluded that many first-year students believe that simple, unchangeable facts are handed down by omniscient authority. By the time they reach their senior year, students believe that complex, tentative knowledge is derived from reason and empirical inquiry. Perry hypothesized nine developmental positions that served as the path from being a dualistic thinker in early college years to being a committed relativistic thinker at the end of the four-year college experience.
ence.佩里總結說，許多一年級學生相信簡單、不變的事實是由全知權威傳下來的。當他們進入高年級時，學生們相信複雜的、試探性的知識來自理性和實證探究。佩里假設了九個發展位置，這些位置是從大學早期的二元論思想家到四年大學經歷結束時成為堅定的相對論思想家的道路。

Perry’s work inspired many other researchers to investigate personal epistemology by focusing on different aspects of personal epistemology. For example, King and Kitchener (1994) have investigated students’ conceptions of knowledge and reality. They proposed a seven-stage theory of the reflective judgment model. In the early stages of development, individuals believe that knowledge is simple and a direct reflection of reality with no need for justification of assertions. As individuals develop, they begin to recognize the uncertainty of knowledge but see this uncertainty only as a temporary state, believing that in time authority can determine the ultimate facts. Meanwhile, assuming that everyone has a right to one’s own opinion serves as the mainstay of justification. At the later stages of development, individuals embrace the tentativeness of knowledge and believe that knowledge must be understood contextually and must be open to reevaluation.
Perry 的工作啟發了許多其他研究人員通過關注個人認識論的不同方面來研究個人認識論。例如，King 和 Kitchener （1994） 研究了學生對知識和現實的概念。他們提出了反思判斷模型的七階段理論。在發展的早期階段，個人認為知識很簡單，是現實的直接反映，不需要論斷。隨著個人的發展，他們開始認識到知識的不確定性，但只將這種不確定性視為一種暫時的狀態，相信權威可以隨著時間的推移決定最終的事實。同時，假設每個人都有權擁有自己的觀點是正當理由的主要支柱。在發展的後期階段，個體接受知識的試探性，並認為知識必須根據上下文來理解，並且必須對重新評估持開放態度。

Other researchers heavily influenced by Perry have focused on gender differences (Baxter Magolda, 1998), and
其他深受 Perry 影響的研究人員專注於性別差異（Baxter Magolda，1998），以及
some have examined women’s ways of knowing. For example, Belenky et al. (1986) unveil the entanglement of self-identity as well as social relationships with individuals’ beliefs about the nature of knowledge. Women in early stages of personal epistemology development view learning as simply receiving absolute knowledge that is handed down by authority; that is, they are the passive receivers of knowledge. Men in the early stages will tend to see learning as mastering absolute knowledge that is handed down by authority; that is, they tend to be active knowledge seekers. Like the previous researchers, these investigators relied heavily on lengthy interviews and often described stage-like developmental progression with thick description of each point of development.
有些人研究了女性的認知方式。例如，Belenky et al. （1986） 揭示了自我認同以及社會關係與個人對知識本質的信念的糾葛。處於個人認識論發展早期階段的女性將學習視為簡單地接受權威傳下來的絕對知識;也就是說，他們是知識的被動接收者。早期階段的男性傾向於將學習視為掌握權威傳下來的絕對知識;也就是說，他們往往是積極的知識尋求者。與以前的研究人員一樣，這些研究人員嚴重依賴冗長的訪談，並且經常描述類似階段的發育進展，並對每個發育點進行詳盡的描述。

In 1990 I proposed a reconceptualization of personal epistemology as a system of more-or-less independent beliefs. By system, I mean that there are multiple beliefs that compose personal epistemology. By more-or-less independent, I mean that these beliefs may or may not develop at synchronous rates. Along with this reconceptualization, I introduced a quantitative approach to the assessment of epistemological beliefs. There are minimally six features of the proposed epistemological belief system that distinguish it from the previous work: (a) the addition of beliefs about learning, (b) the identification of distinct beliefs, © the consideration of asynchronous development, (d) the acknowledgment of need for balance, (e) the introduction of belief nomenclature, and (f) the introduction of quantitative assessment.
1990年，我提議將個人認識論重新概念化為一個或多或少獨立的信仰體系。我所說的系統，是指有多種信念構成了個人認識論。我所說的或多或少獨立，是指這些信念可能會也可能不會以同步的速度發展。隨著這種重新概念化，我引入了一種定量方法來評估認識論信念。所提出的認識論信仰系統至少有六個特徵將其與以前的工作區分開來：（a） 增加關於學習的信念，（b） 識別不同的信念，©考慮異步發展，（d） 承認需要平衡，（e） 引入信念命名法，以及 （f） 引入定量評估。

The beliefs that were included in the 1990 epistemological belief system and the idea that alternative methods of measurement were plausible were inspired from the synthesis of the personal epistemology research that proceeded it with special emphasis on the works of Perry (1968), Kitchener and King (1989), Ryan (1984), and Schoenfeld (1983, 1985). The hypothesized beliefs included beliefs about (a) the stability of knowledge, ranging from unchanging knowledge to tentative knowledge; (b) the structure of knowledge, ranging from isolated bits and pieces to integrated concepts; © the source of knowledge, ranging from omniscient authority to reason and empirical evidence; (d) the speed of learning, ranging from quick or not-at-all to gradual; and (e) the ability to learn, ranging from fixed at birth to improvable. The beliefs about the structure of knowledge, the source of knowledge, and the stability of knowledge were well-established points of interest based on the works of investigators such as Perry and Kitchener and King.
1990年認識論信仰體系中包含的信念以及替代測量方法是合理的想法受到個人認識論研究的綜合的啟發，該研究特彆強調 Perry （1968）、Kitchener 和 King （1989）、Ryan （1984） 和 Schoenfeld （1983， 1985） 的工作。假設的信念包括以下信念：（a） 知識的穩定性，從不變的知識到初步的知識;（b） 知識的結構，從孤立的零碎到綜合的概念;© 知識的來源，從全知權威到理性和實證;（d） 學習的速度，從快速或根本不到循序漸進不等;以及 （e） 學習能力，從出生時固定到可提高。關於知識結構、知識來源和知識穩定性的信念是基於 Perry、Kitchener 和 King 等研究人員的著作的公認興趣點。

The idea of separate beliefs and beliefs about learning were evidenced in Schoenfeld’s $(1983,1985)$$(1983,1985)$(1983,1985)(1983,1985) work. Using an observation and interview technique, Schoenfeld (1983) de- scribed mathematical beliefs in a discrete way. After watching students solve geometry problems and encouraging them to think aloud, Schoenfeld (1983) came to several conclusions about students’ common beliefs, which I have incorporated into the epistemological beliefs paradigm: (a) that only gifted authority figures can truly understand mathematics (the precursor of belief in the “ability to learn”); (b) that mathematical problem solving should occur quickly or not at all (precursor of the belief in “speed of learning”); and © that mathematics proofs are handed down by omniscient authority figures (a belief consistent with Perry’s (1968) work, and precursor to the belief entitled “source of knowledge”). Hence, the work of both Perry and Schoenfeld served as precursor to the belief titled “source of knowledge.”
舍恩菲爾德 $(1983,1985)$$(1983,1985)$(1983,1985)(1983,1985) 的工作證明瞭不同的信念和關於學習的信念的想法。Schoenfeld （1983） 使用觀察和訪談技術，以離散的方式描述了數學信念。在觀察了學生解決幾何問題並鼓勵他們大聲思考之後，Schoenfeld （1983） 得出了關於學生共同信念的幾個結論，我已將其納入認識論信念範式：（a） 只有有天賦的權威人物才能真正理解數學（相信“學習能力”的先驅）;（b） 數學問題解決應該迅速發生或根本不發生（相信“學習速度”的前身）;數學©證明是由全知的權威人物傳下來的（這一信念與 Perry （1968） 的工作一致，並且是題為“知識來源”的信念的前身）。因此，Perry 和 Schoenfeld 的工作都成為名為“知識之源”的信仰的先驅。

What is substantially different from previous personal epistemology paradigms is the introduction of the “speed of learning” and the “ability to learn.” How do the two learning beliefs link to knowledge beliefs? Given that beliefs about the structure of knowledge, the stability of knowledge, and the source of knowledge are commonly accepted epistemological beliefs, it seems plausible that the beliefs about the source of knowledge serve as the closest link to the learning beliefs. In other words, the learning beliefs unveil what students think about the source of knowledge. Hence, Schoenfeld uncovered students’ beliefs about mathematical omniscient authority. And apparently, based on Schoenfeld’s observations, what makes authority omniscient from the students perspective is that authorities are gifted experts, and gifted experts learn quickly.
與以前的個人認識論範式截然不同的是引入了“學習速度”和“學習能力”。這兩種學習信念如何與知識信念相關聯？鑒於關於知識結構、知識穩定性和知識來源的信念是普遍接受的認識論信念，因此關於知識來源的信念與學習信念最接近的聯繫似乎是合理的。換句話說，學習信念揭示了學生對知識來源的看法。因此，Schoenfeld揭示了學生對數學全知權威的信念。顯然，根據 Schoenfeld 的觀察，從學生的角度來看，權威之所以無所不知，是因為權威是有天賦的專家，而有天賦的專家學得很快。

Furthermore, although Dweck’s (Dweck & Legget, 1988) work was not an initial inspiration, it provided more support for the idea that belief about the ability to learn is critical to the learning process. In general, she found that when faced with a difficult (yet within their ken) task, children who believe the ability to learn is fixed at birth will display helpless behavior. Under the same circumstances, children with a strong belief that the ability to learn can improve will persist and try different strategies.
此外，儘管Dweck的（Dweck & Legget，1988）的工作並不是最初的靈感來源，但它為關於學習能力的信念對學習過程至關重要的觀點提供了更多的支援。總的來說，她發現，當面臨一項艱巨的（但在他們的能力範圍內）任務時，認為學習能力在出生時就已經固定下來的孩子會表現出無助的行為。在相同的情況下，堅信學習能力可以提高的孩子會堅持不懈並嘗試不同的策略。

Although Perry (1968) had made minimal use of a questionnaire, it was Ryan’s (1984) work that suggested the feasibility of using a more objective means of assessing epistemological beliefs with a questionnaire. In the attempt to understand metacognition, Ryan used a short Likert-scale questionnaire to assess students’ belief in either relativist or dualistic knowledge, that is, believing that knowledge is context dependent or simply right or wrong. He found that the more students believed knowledge is dualistic, the more likely they were to assume that they had achieved understanding when they were able to recall a list of facts. Relativistic believers assumed that they had achieved understanding if they could see connections among ideas and could apply their knowledge. Hence, Ryan focused on a single aspect of Perry’s work, what is known in the epistemological belief system as the structure of knowledge, and he demonstrated the utility of a quantitative measure, which allowed for the
儘管 Perry （1968） 很少使用問卷，但 Ryan （1984） 的工作提出了使用更客觀的方法來評估問卷認識論信念的可行性。為了理解元認知，Ryan 使用了一份簡短的李克特量表問卷來評估學生對相對主義或二元論知識的信念，即認為知識取決於上下文或簡單地對或錯。他發現，學生越相信知識是二元論的，當他們能夠回憶起一系列事實時，他們就越有可能假設他們已經獲得了理解。相對論信徒認為，如果他們能夠看到思想之間的聯繫並能夠應用他們的知識，他們就已經實現了理解。因此，Ryan 專注於 Perry 工作的一個方面，即在認識論信仰體系中被稱為知識結構的東西，他展示了定量測量的效用，它允許
statistical link between personal epistemology and an aspect of learning.
個人認識論與學習的一個方面之間的統計聯繫。

With the introduction of an epistemological belief system, these beliefs were conceptualized as unique entities. The decision to consider separate beliefs was not an effort to say that patterns uncovered by previous researchers were not valid, nor was it a suggestion that they function separately. Rather, it was a way to tease apart aspects of previous thick descriptions and allow a more analytical inspection of individuals’ epistemological beliefs.
隨著認識論信仰體系的引入，這些信念被概念化為獨特的實體。考慮不同信念的決定並不是說以前的研究人員發現的模式無效，也不是說它們獨立運作。相反，這是一種梳理以前厚重描述的各個方面的方法，並允許對個人的認識論信念進行更具分析性的檢查。

For example, the multiple beliefs conceptualization allows for the possibility to test the more-or-less hypothesis. By more or less independent, I mean that epistemological beliefs may or may not develop in synchrony. An example of asynchronous development is an individual who believes that knowledge is predominately complex yet at the same time believes knowledge is unchanging. Believing in complexity is considered mature, whereas believing in unchanging knowledge is not. Even if one believes that epistemological beliefs develop in stages, the possibility remains that patterns of asynchrony may mark periods of transitional growth from stage to stage.
例如，多重信念概念化允許檢驗或多或少的假設的可能性。我所說的或多或少獨立，是指認識論的信念可能會也可能不會同步發展。異步開發的一個例子是，一個人認為知識主要是複雜的，但同時又認為知識是不變的。相信複雜性被認為是成熟的，而相信不變的知識則不是。即使人們相信認識論信念是分階段發展的，但異步模式可能標誌著從一個階段到另一個階段的過渡增長期的可能性仍然存在。

As a point of clarification, to develop or be more mature means that the belief supports higher order thinking. Hence, an individual who believes that knowledge is simple and certain, and that learning is quick and fixed at birth, is considered less mature. Research has supported this maturity assumption in that the more students believe in simple (isolated) knowledge, the more poorly they comprehend complex text and the less likely they are to use integrative study strategies (Schommer, Crouse, & Rhodes, 1992). The more students believe in certain knowledge, the more likely they are to misinterpret tentative information (Schommer, 1990). The more students believe in quick learning, the more poorly they perform academically as measured by grade point average and reading comprehension tests (Schommer, 1993; Schommer, Calvert, Gariglietti, & Bajaj, 1997). The more students believe in fixed ability to learn, the less likely they are to persist in difficult tasks (Dweck & Leggett, 1988) and the less likely they are to value education (Schommer & Walker, 1997).
需要澄清的是，發展或更成熟意味著信念支援高階思維。因此，一個相信知識簡單而確定，學習是快速和固定的個體，被認為不太成熟。研究支援了這個成熟度假設，即學生越相信簡單（孤立）的知識，他們對複雜文本的理解就越差，他們使用綜合學習策略的可能性就越小（Schommer， Crouse， & Rhodes， 1992）。學生越相信某些知識，他們就越有可能誤解暫定資訊（Schommer，1990）。學生越相信快速學習，他們的學業表現就越差（以平均績點和閱讀理解測試衡量）（Schommer，1993 年;Schommer， Calvert， Gariglietti， & Bajaj， 1997）。學生越相信固定的學習能力，他們就越不可能堅持完成困難的任務（Dweck & Leggett，1988年，他們就越不可能珍視教育（Schommer & Walker，1997年）。

The notion of balance is critical to the definition of epistemological sophistication (Schommer, 1994; Schommer-Aikins, 2002). That is, it is assumed that any extreme epistemological belief could be problematic. For example, an extreme belief that knowledge is certain or un- changing could render individuals dogmatic and unable to change when the situation demands change. In the worst case scenario they may be unable to learn new ways of driving or writing or using new technology. In short, they may become obsolete in a world that requires updating or creativity. Conversely, an extreme belief in tentative knowledge could render individuals unable to hold a particular point of view, cause them to be open-minded to the point that they are without mind, or, in the very worst case, leave them on the verge of a mental breakdown for the lack of stability in their perceptions of life.
平衡的概念對於認識論複雜性的定義至關重要（Schommer，1994;Schommer-Aikins，2002 年）。也就是說，假設任何極端的認識論信念都可能是有問題的。例如，極端地相信知識是確定的或不變的，可能會使個人變得教條，當情況需要改變時，他們無法改變。在最壞的情況下，他們可能無法學習新的駕駛方式、寫作或使用新技術。簡而言之，在一個需要更新或創造力的世界中，它們可能會過時。相反，對初步知識的極端信仰可能會使個體無法持有特定的觀點，導致他們的思想開放到沒有思想的地步，或者在最壞的情況下，由於他們對生活的感知缺乏穩定性，使他們處於精神崩潰的邊緣。

To capture the idea of balance, it has been proposed that epistemological beliefs be portrayed as frequency distributions rather than as continuums (Schommer, 1994; Schommer-Aikins, 2002). For example, individuals could believe that a large percentage of knowledge is changing, yet some knowledge is steadfast. These individuals would have the propensity to assume and function as if knowledge will change. Yet, they would still able to entertain the notion of some stability in what they know. This is consistent with Perry’s (1968) thinking that as students mature, their dominant form of thinking is relativistic, with dualistic thinking as the exception to the rule.
為了捕捉平衡的概念，有人提議將認識論信念描繪為頻率分佈而不是連續體（Schommer，1994;Schommer-Aikins，2002 年）。例如，個人可能認為很大一部分知識正在發生變化，但有些知識是堅定不移的。這些人將傾向於假設和運作，就好像知識會發生變化一樣。然而，他們仍然能夠在他們所知道的事物中接受某種穩定性的概念。這與 Perry （1968） 的想法一致，即隨著學生的成熟，他們的主導思維形式是相對主義的，二元論思維是例外。

The choice of nomenclature for personal epistemology has varied over the years. References to personal epistemology have included terms such as epistemic positions (Perry, 1968), epistemic cognition (King & Kitchener, 1994), epistemological reflection (Baxter-Magolda, 1998), and epistemological thinking (Kuhn & Weinstock, 2002). In introducing a system of epistemological beliefs, I also introduced the notion of belief into this field of study. The reasoning behind this was that personal epistemology seems to have many characteristics that are typically ascribed to beliefs, in general.
多年來，個人認識論的命名選擇各不相同。對個人認識論的引用包括諸如認識論立場（Perry，1968）、認識論認知（King & Kitchener，1994）、認識論反思（Baxter-Magolda，1998）和認識論思維（Kuhn & Weinstock，2002）。在引入認識論信仰體系時，我也將信仰的概念引入到這個研究領域。這背後的原因是，個人認識論似乎具有許多通常歸因於信念的特徵。

The construct of belief is messy (Pajares, 1992); for example, the construct of belief seems to overlap with the construct of knowledge (Alexander & Dochy, 1994). The elements of belief that seem most relevant to personal epistemology include affect, limited adherence to logic, difficulty in changing, and a powerful influence on thinking. Pajares in his insightful article about teachers’ beliefs characterizes beliefs as follows:
信仰的結構是混亂的（Pajares， 1992）;例如，信仰的建構似乎與知識的建構重疊（Alexander & Dochy， 1994）。似乎與個人認識論最相關的信念要素包括情感、對邏輯的有限遵守、難以改變以及對思維的強大影響。帕哈雷斯在他關於教師信仰的深刻文章中，將信仰描述如下：

Belief systems, unlike knowledge systems, do not require general or group consensus regarding the validity and appropriateness of their beliefs. Individual beliefs do not even require internal consistency within the belief system. This noncensensuality implies that belief systems are by their very nature disputable, more inflexible, and less dynamic than knowledge systems. One likes to think that reason and evidence advance knowledge and that informed scholarship develops; beliefs are basically unchanging, and when they
與知識系統不同，信仰系統不需要對其信仰的有效性和適當性達成普遍或群體共識。個人信仰甚至不需要信仰體系內部的一致性。這種非共識性意味著信仰體系就其本質而言是有爭議的，比知識體系更不靈活，更缺乏活力。人們喜歡認為理性和證據會推進知識，而有見地的學術研究會發展起來;信念基本上是不變的，當它們
change, it is not argument or reason that alters them but rather a conversion or gestalt shift. (p. 311)
改變，改變它們的不是爭論或理性，而是皈依或格式塔轉變。（第 311 頁）

Abelson (1986) describes beliefs like possessions. They are like old clothes; once acquired and worn for awhile, they become comfortable. It does not make any difference if the clothes are out of style or ragged. Letting go is painful and new clothes require adjustment. And so it may be with epistemological beliefs, especially once they are established in adulthood. In short, epistemological beliefs are often unconscious, except for individuals who work or study with epistemological issues directly. Furthermore, once these beliefs are acquired they are held onto tightly. Change does not come easily. Indeed, a substantial change in an epistemological belief may bring with it discomfort and confusion. How responsive individuals are to direct instruction about epistemological beliefs remains a question to be addressed in future research. What is evident now is that the fuzziness of beliefs adds to the challenge of assessing an epistemological belief system.
Abelson （1986） 將信念描述為財產。他們就像舊衣服;一旦獲得並佩戴一段時間，它們就會變得舒適。如果衣服過時或破爛不堪，也沒有任何區別。放手是痛苦的，新衣服需要調整。認識論信念可能也是如此，尤其是當它們在成年後建立起來之後。簡而言之，認識論信念通常是無意識的，除了直接與認識論問題一起工作或研究的人。此外，一旦這些信念被獲得，它們就會被緊緊抓住。改變來之不易。事實上，認識論信念的實質性變化可能會帶來不適和困惑。個體對認識論信念的直接指導的反應如何，仍然是未來研究中需要解決的問題。現在很明顯的是，信念的模糊性增加了評估認識論信仰體系的挑戰。

To initiate the study of an epistemological belief system, I constructed a questionnaire to assess the five hypothesized beliefs. Research testing this epistemological belief instrument yielded all hypothesized beliefs with the exception of source of knowledge (Schommer, 1990). Subsequent factor analyses (Schommer, 1993; Schommer et al., 1992) have replicated these four factors. Still other researchers have modified the questionnaire and proposed slightly different sets of five epistemological beliefs (Jehng, Johnson, & Anderson, 1993; Schraw, Bendixen, & Dunkle, 2002). For example Jehng et al. (1993) proposed a belief about the orderly process of learning as a replacement for the structure of knowledge.
為了開始對認識論信仰體系的研究，我構建了一份問卷來評估這五種假設的信念。測試這種認識論信念工具的研究產生了除知識來源之外的所有假設信念（Schommer，1990）。隨後的因數分析（Schommer，1993 年;Schommer et al.， 1992）複製了這四個因素。還有一些研究人員修改了問卷，並提出了五種認識論信念的略有不同的集合（Jehng， Johnson， & Anderson， 1993;Schraw， Bendixen， & Dunkle， 2002）。例如，Jehng et al. （1993） 提出了一種關於學習的有序過程作為知識結構替代品的信念。

The fact that this questionnaire has been used by researchers around the world speaks more to the need and/or desire to measure epistemological beliefs with an efficient and objective method than to the illusion of a perfect instrument. The availability of a questionnaire that allows for group administration and for statistical analyses may have contributed to the increase in the study of personal epistemology. In the initial effort to create a measure of epistemological beliefs (Schommer 1990), ideas for items were derived from reviewing the qualitative studies that proceeded it. Especially influential was the work of Perry (1968) and Schoenfeld (1983, 1985). The questionnaire I devised presented statements such as, “Most words have one clear meaning,” and “Scientist can ultimately get to the truth,” and students were asked to respond on a Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Wording of items varied in voice from first person (i.e., $I$$I$II ) to third person (e.g., students), again in an effort to illustrate how the same belief could be queried from somewhat different perspectives. Two or more subsets of items were prepared for each hypothesized epistemological belief. For example, there were at least two ways a learner could believe knowledge is structured simply. It could be that there are single answers, or it could be that knowledge is characterized as disconnected bits of information. Hence, a subset of items captured each of the simplistic notions of the structure of knowledge. Loosely speaking, this was an effort to use converging measures in order to understand a complex phenomenon.
這份問卷已被世界各地的研究人員使用的事實更多地說明了用有效和客觀的方法衡量認識論信念的必要性和/或願望，而不是完美工具的錯覺。允許進行群體管理和統計分析的問卷的可用性可能有助於個人認識論研究的增加。在最初努力創建認識論信念的衡量標準（Schommer 1990）中，專案的想法是通過回顧進行它的定性研究得出的。Perry （1968） 和 Schoenfeld （1983， 1985） 的工作特別有影響力。我設計的問卷提出了諸如「大多數詞都有一個明確的含義」和「科學家最終可以找到真相」等陳述，並要求學生按照從1（非常不同意）到5（非常同意）的李克特量表進行回答。專案的措辭從第一人稱（即） $I$$I$II 到第三人稱（例如學生）不等，再次是為了說明如何從不同的角度詢問相同的信念。為每個假設的認識論信念準備了兩個或多個專案子集。例如，學習者至少可以通過兩種方式相信知識的結構很簡單。可能是存在單一的答案，也可能是知識被描述為不連貫的資訊位。因此，專案的子集捕獲了知識結構的每個簡單概念。粗略地說，這是為了使用收斂措施來理解複雜現象的努力。

In some senses this questionnaire was a means for researchers to explore minds in search of individuals’ epistemological beliefs. How could one predict exactly the right items to present? With this dilemma to face, the questionnaire became a lengthy 63 items, and a wide array of items was administered as if casting a net of inquiry in order to catch a glimpse of individuals’ beliefs. Because the sample size was modest, factor analyses were conducted on the mean for each subset, rather than at the item level. The resulting factor scores did predict students comprehension, metacomprehension, and interpretation of academic text (Schommer, 1990).
從某種意義上說，這份問卷是研究人員探索思想以尋找個人認識論信念的一種手段。如何準確預測要呈現的正確專案？面對這個困境，問卷變成了一個冗長的 63 個專案，並且管理了各種各樣的專案，就像撒網探究以瞥見個人的信仰一樣。由於樣本量適中，因此對每個子集的平均值進行因數分析，而不是在專案級別進行。由此產生的因數分數確實預測了學生對學術文本的理解、元理解和解釋（Schommer，1990）。

In more recent years other researchers have attempted to modify the original questionnaire in order to improve the psychometric qualities. For example, Jehng et al. (1993) modified the Schommer Epistemological Questionnaire into a 34-item questionnaire that assesses the degree to which students believe in the certainty of knowledge, rigid learning, omniscient authority, innate ability, and orderly process. Kardash and Wood (2000) combined the Schommer (1990) and Jehng et al. questionnaires. After a series of analyses to eliminate items that did not load onto a factor structure, they developed 38-item questionnaire that assesses the speed of knowledge acquisition, the structure of knowledge, knowledge construction and modification, characteristics of successful students, and attainability of truth. Schraw et al. (2002) modified the Schommer questionnaire and developed a 28 -item questionnaire that assesses omniscient authority, certain knowledge, quick learning, simple knowledge, and innate ability. Among all of these instruments, internal reliability for the measure of each belief ranges from .54 to .76 (Cronbach alphas).
近年來，其他研究人員試圖修改原始問卷，以提高心理測量品質。例如，Jehng 等人（1993 年）將 Schommer 認識論問卷修改為一份包含 34 個專案的問卷，用於評估學生對知識確定性、嚴格學習、全知權威、天生能力和有序過程的信念程度。Kardash 和 Wood （2000） 結合了 Schommer （1990） 和 Jehng 等人的問卷。在進行了一系列分析以消除未載入到因數結構上的專案后，他們開發了包含38個專案的問卷，用於評估知識獲取的速度、知識的結構、知識構建和修改、成功學生的特徵以及真理的可獲得性。Schraw 等人（2002 年）修改了 Schommer 問卷並開發了一份包含 28 個專案的問卷，用於評估全知權威、一定知識、快速學習、簡單知識和先天能力。在所有這些工具中，衡量每個信念的內部信度範圍從 .54 到 .76 （Cronbach alphas）。

Higher values for reliability would certainly be desirable, although the measurement of the construct of beliefs is notoriously difficult. As Shavelson (2002) noted, Cronbach argued for the need to prioritize validity, even at the cost of lower reliability: “While reliability was an important characteristic of a test, Lee believed that ultimately it served its master, validity, where sometimes trade-offs were necessary between broadly gauging a construct and narrowly constructing a homogeneous set of items to improve reliability” (p. 37). And so it is that quantifying epistemological beliefs will necessarily be difficult. If researchers narrow the focus of assessment on domain-specific epistemological beliefs, or epistemological beliefs within the context of a specific classroom, they will likely get higher reliability. On the other hand, they will be assessing not only epistemological beliefs,
更高的可靠性值當然是可取的，儘管眾所周知，測量信念的結構是困難的。正如 Shavelson （2002） 所指出的，Cronbach 認為需要優先考慮有效性，即使以較低的可靠性為代價：“雖然可靠性是測試的一個重要特徵，但 Lee 認為它最終服務於其主要有效性，有時需要在廣泛衡量結構與狹隘構建同質專案集之間進行權衡以提高可靠性”（第 37 頁）。因此，量化認識論信念必然是困難的。如果研究人員將評估的重點縮小到特定領域的認識論信念，或特定課堂背景下的認識論信念，他們可能會獲得更高的可靠性。另一方面，他們不僅要評估認識論的信念，
but also the idiosyncrasies of the teacher, the textbook, and the classroom ambience. If researchers construct items that use only a first-person perspective (i.e., “I …”), they will heavily entangle students’ self-concept and/or self-efficacy with personal epistemology. These entanglements may be appropriate, but researchers must be aware of the confound.
還有老師的特質、教科書和課堂氛圍。如果研究人員構建僅使用第一人稱視角的專案（即“我......”），他們將把學生的自我概念和/或自我效能感與個人認識論嚴重糾纏在一起。這些糾纏可能是適當的，但研究人員必須意識到其中的混雜。

Furthermore, the very basics of assessment administration must be followed. Researchers should take great care to give instructions without trying to influence participants; for example, they should present the task of questionnaire completion as important enough to take seriously, but not so important that participants overthink the questions or try to please the researcher. If the instrument is presented with other instruments, order effect must be addressed, such as counterbalancing the order of assessments. Participants should not be taking courses about learning because those enrolled in such courses will have been exposed to the phraseology of sophisticated thinking and may respond in a mature way without really believing it. Thus, the assessment of epistemological beliefs is delicate regardless of the type of assessment involved. Any form of assessment, whether quantitative or qualitative, can be rendered invalid if it is not properly carried out or properly analyzed.
此外，必須遵循評估管理的基本原則。研究人員應該非常小心地給出指示，不要試圖影響參與者;例如，他們應該將完成問卷的任務描述為足夠重要以至於值得認真對待，但又不能重要到參與者過度思考問題或試圖取悅研究人員。如果該工具與其他工具一起呈現，則必須解決順序效應，例如抵消評估順序。參與者不應該參加有關學習的課程，因為參加此類課程的人將接觸到複雜思維的短語，並且可能會以成熟的方式做出回應，但並不真正相信它。因此，無論涉及何種類型的評估，對認識論信念的評估都是微妙的。任何形式的評估，無論是定量的還是定性的，如果沒有正確執行或適當分析，都可能被視為無效。

With this discussion of quantitative methodology, I do not mean to suggest that it is the only means to assess personal epistemology. It is clear that each assessment technique brings with it a different perspective. At this point in time, quantitative assessment of personal epistemology is still in its infancy.
通過對定量方法論的討論，我並不是說它是評估個人認識論的唯一手段。很明顯，每種評估技術都帶來了不同的視角。在這一點上，對個人認識論的定量評估仍處於起步階段。

First, let it be said that each paradigm of personal epistemology has provided new insight. Those contributions notwithstanding, the epistemological belief system paradigm gives researchers the opportunity to examine subcomponents of personal epistemology. The analytical approach allows researchers to theorize what beliefs may need to be included or excluded in an epistemological belief system. The paradigm and the measures used allow links between personal epistemology and learning to be more clearly established with group data and statistical analyses. An appreciation of different beliefs may help teachers pinpoint which beliefs need to be modified for any particular student. It may also help teachers pinpoint students’ beliefs that are sophisticated, which lets the teacher know when to provide more advanced learning experiences for students.
首先，可以說，個人認識論的每一個範式都提供了新的見解。儘管有這些貢獻，但認識論信仰系統範式讓研究人員有機會研究個人認識論的子組成部分。分析方法使研究人員能夠理論化認識論信仰體系中可能需要包含或排除哪些信念。所使用的範式和措施允許通過群體數據和統計分析更清楚地建立個人認識論和學習之間的聯繫。對不同信念的欣賞可能有助於教師確定需要為任何特定學生修改哪些信念。它還可以幫助教師確定學生的複雜信念，從而讓教師知道何時為學生提供更高級的學習體驗。

Although an epistemological belief system allows researchers and teachers to look at the parts, it does not exclude looking at the whole. Path models and structural equation models can provide a glimpse at how epistemological beliefs influence each and how other aspects of cognition and affect are intertwined with epistemological beliefs. Combining other measures of epistemological beliefs, such as inter- views, observations, and document analysis with the group measures, can provide a more holistic understanding of personal epistemology.
儘管認識論信仰體系允許研究人員和教師關注各個部分，但它並不排除關注整體。路徑模型和結構方程模型可以讓我們了解認識論信念如何影響彼此，以及認知和影響的其他方面如何與認識論信念交織在一起。將認識論信念的其他測量方法，如觀察、觀察和檔分析與群體測量相結合，可以提供對個人認識論的更全面理解。

Although the epistemological belief system paradigm contributes to the understanding of personal epistemology, the focus of research is still narrow in scope. There is a need to conceptualize and study epistemological beliefs embedded within other systems. The need for an embedded systemic model of epistemological beliefs, that is, a model that includes many other aspects of cognition and affect, comes from the assumption that epistemological beliefs do not function in a vacuum. Indeed, at any given moment, learners’ thoughts, actions, or motivations represent the convergence of multiple systems.
儘管認識論信仰系統範式有助於理解個人認識論，但研究的重點在範圍上仍然很窄。有必要概念化和研究嵌入其他系統中的認識論信念。需要一個嵌入式的認識論信念系統模型，即一個包括認知和情感的許多其他方面的模型，來自於這樣一個假設，即認識論信念不是在真空中運作的。事實上，在任何特定時刻，學習者的思想、行動或動機都代表著多個系統的融合。

This system-among-other-systems idea is not new. For example, Bronfenbrenner (1979) proposed an ecological systems theory of human development indicating that development is influenced by multiple levels of environmental and cognitive variables. The first level of influence (beyond the individual learner) includes schools, peers, and family; the next level of influence includes neighborhood and community; and the outermost level of influence is culture, such as church, social customs, and laws (Schunk, 1991). Similarly, Lerner (1995) proposed developmental contextualism in that changes in context bring changes in human development. Just as important, changes in individuals can reciprocally change contexts at other levels.
這種 system-among-other-systems 的想法並不新鮮。例如，Bronfenbrenner （1979） 提出了人類發展的生態系統理論，表明發展受到多層次環境和認知變數的影響。第一級影響（超出學習者個體）包括學校、同齡人和家庭;下一個層次的影響力包括鄰里和社區;最外層的影響是文化，例如教堂、社會習俗和法律（Schunk，1991）。同樣，Lerner （1995） 提出了發展情境主義，因為情境的變化會帶來人類發展的變化。同樣重要的是，個人的變化可以反過來改變其他層面的環境。

Researchers have also foreshadowed the need for expanding the conceptualization of personal epistemology. For example, the intimate tie between social relationships and epistemological beliefs is readily apparent in the work of Belenky et al. (1986) and more recently Galotti, Blythe, Ainsworth, Lavin, and Mansfield (1999). Among both men and women, the idea of how knowledge is negotiated or how one judges the quality of knowledge is affected by how one relates with other people, such as teachers, experts, and peers. Galotti et al. extended Belenky et al.'s “women’s ways of knowing” by developing an instrument that assesses connected knowing and separate knowing. Learners with a strong belief in connected knowing initially attempt to empathize with the knowledge source, take on the source’s perspective, and understand the point being made. Only after understanding the perspective are they ready to be more critical. In contrast, learners with a stronger belief in separate knowing take an adversarial perspective first. Functioning as a devil’s advocate, they question, doubt, and wait for evidence before they attempt to deeply understand the information.
研究人員還預示了擴大個人認識論概念化的必要性。例如，社會關係和認識論信念之間的密切聯繫在 Belenky 等人（1986 年）和最近的 Galotti、Blythe、Ainsworth、Lavin 和 Mansfield （1999） 的工作中顯而易見。在男性和女性中，如何協商知識或如何判斷知識品質的想法受到一個人與他人（如教師、專家和同行）的關係的影響。Galotti 等人通過開發一種評估連接認知和分離認知的工具，擴展了 Belenky 等人的“女性認知方式”。堅信互聯知識的學習者最初會嘗試與知識來源產生共鳴，從來源的角度出發，並理解所提出的觀點。只有在理解了觀點之後，他們才準備好變得更加批判。相比之下，更相信獨立認知的學習者首先採取對抗性視角。作為魔鬼的代言人，他們質疑、懷疑並等待證據，然後才試圖深入理解資訊。

De Corte, Op’t Eynde, and Verschaffel (2002) called for a more elaborate model in understanding student mathematical
De Corte、Op't Eynde 和 Verschaffel （2002） 呼籲在理解學生數學方面建立一個更詳細的模型
epistemological beliefs. For a more complete mathematical beliefs model they suggested that a minimum of three categories of beliefs should be considered: (a) beliefs about mathematical education, (b) beliefs about self in relation to mathematics, and © beliefs about the social context of mathematical learning and problem solving. Furthermore, they wrote
認識論信念。為了建立一個更完整的數學信念模型，他們建議至少應考慮三類信念：（a） 關於數學教育的信念，（b） 關於與數學相關的自我信念，以及©關於數學學習和解決問題的社會背景的信念。此外，他們還寫道
Students’ beliefs about mathematics clearly are situated at
學生對數學的看法顯然位於
the intersection of the cognitive and motivational, or better
認知和激勵的交集，或者更好
affective, domain. … The fact that a variety of mathemat-
affective， 域。…事實上，各種數學
ics-related beliefs are studied from different research per-
ICS 相關信念是從不同的研究中研究的。
spectives does not necessarily have to be a disadvantage; to
spectives 不一定是缺點;自
the contrary. It only asks for a more general synthesizing
恰恰相反。它只要求更一般的綜合
model in which the different results can be placed and under-
模型，其中可以放置不同的結果，並在
stood in relation to each other. So far, such a comprehensive
站在一起。到目前為止，如此全面的
model is lacking, and looks like what this research field
模型是缺失的，看起來就像這個研究領域
needs. (p. 300) 需要。（第 300 頁）
Students’ beliefs about mathematics clearly are situated at the intersection of the cognitive and motivational, or better affective, domain. … The fact that a variety of mathematics-related beliefs are studied from different research perspectives does not necessarily have to be a disadvantage; to the contrary. It only asks for a more general synthesizing model in which the different results can be placed and understood in relation to each other. So far, such a comprehensive model is lacking, and looks like what this research field needs. (p. 300)
學生對數學的信念顯然位於認知和動機，或者更好的情感領域的交叉點。…從不同的研究角度研究各種與數學相關的信念這一事實並不一定是缺點;恰恰相反。它只要求一個更通用的綜合模型，在該模型中，不同的結果可以相互放置和理解。到目前為止，還缺乏這樣一個全面的模型，看起來正是這個研究領域所需要的。（第 300 頁）

Reviews of Winne’s (1995) model of self-regulated learning provides another example of the unspoken need for an embedded systemic model to research. Winne attempted to flesh out inherent details of self-regulated learning by uniting two systems (or four systems, depending on how one parses these areas): metacognition (selection and use of study strategies, and epistemological beliefs) and knowledge (knowledge of the topic and knowledge of strategies). Although Winne’s model was thoughtful and detailed, the common theme among the responses of leading educational psychologists who were invited to comment was the incompleteness of the model. Additional suggestions included systems of social situation (Alexander, 1995; Corno, 1995), domain specificity (Alexander), motivational processes and affective variables (Boekaerts, 1995), and multiplicity of goals of monitoring and multiplicity of self-regulatory forms (Pressley, 1995; Schunk, 1995). The point here is that clearly more complex models provide more explanatory power.
對 Winne （1995） 的自我調節學習模型的評論提供了另一個不言而喻的例子，說明對嵌入式系統模型的研究的不言而喻的需求。Winne 試圖通過統一兩個系統（或四個系統，取決於如何解析這些領域）來充實自我調節學習的內在細節：元認知（選擇和使用學習策略和認識論信念）和知識（主題知識和策略知識）。儘管 Winne 的模型經過深思熟慮且詳細，但受邀發表評論的領先教育心理學家的回答中的共同主題是該模型的不完整。其他建議包括社會情境系統（Alexander， 1995;Corno， 1995）、領域特異性 （Alexander）、動機過程和情感變數 （Boekaerts， 1995） 以及監控目標的多樣性和自我調節形式的多樣性 （Pressley， 1995;Schunk，1995 年）。這裏的重點是，顯然更複雜的模型提供了更多的解釋能力。

I propose an embedded systemic model of epistemological beliefs, acknowledging that it is incomplete, but I hope to stimulate reactions from other researchers. What I anticipate is that it will stimulate a raft of reactions from other researchers who will eagerly fill in many gaps. With this embedded systemic model, I portray epistemological beliefs in a broader context. The proposed model entails the interactions among six systems: (a) cultural relational views, (b) beliefs about “ways of knowing,” © beliefs about knowledge, (d) beliefs about learning, (e) classroom performance, and (f) self-regulated learning. See Figure 1 for the broad overview of the proposed embedded systemic model.
我提出了一個嵌入式系統的認識論信念模型，承認它是不完整的，但我希望能激發其他研究人員的反應。我預計它會激發其他研究人員的大量反應，他們將急切地填補許多空白。通過這個嵌入式系統模型，我在更廣泛的背景下描繪了認識論信念。所提出的模型涉及六個系統之間的相互作用：（a） 文化關係觀，（b） 關於“認識方式”的信念，©關於知識的信念，（d） 關於學習的信念，（e） 課堂表現，以及 （f） 自我調節的學習。有關所提出的嵌入式系統模型的廣泛概述，請參見圖 1。

First, an overview of the social relationships from a cultural perspective is presented. Then the hypothetical interaction among systems is discussed.
首先，從文化角度概述了社會關係。然後討論了系統之間的假設交互。

FIGURE 1 An overview of an initial embedded systemic model of epistemological beliefs illustrating the interplay among systems of culture, ways of knowing, epistemological beliefs, and consequential learner self-regulation and performance.
圖 1 認識論信念的初始嵌入式系統模型概述，說明瞭文化系統、認知方式、認識論信念以及隨之而來的學習者自我調節和表現之間的相互作用。

Cultural relational views. Cultural relational views refer to an individual’s perceptions of the predominate way people associate with each other. Two dimensions of social relationships serve as the underpinnings of this model: (a) the degree of closeness between people, and (b) the degree of perceived status differentiation among people. The degree of closeness dimension explores the degree to which individuals believe people should be independent or interdependent. The status differentiation dimension explores the degree to which people assume hierarchical status (sometimes referred to as power) or equal status among people. For example, relationships could be hierarchical in nature, meaning that between any two individuals one will always have greater status (or power) than the other. Alternatively, relationships could be on a level plane where there is more of an egalitarian, peer-like relationship and differences in status are minimized. These two opposing relational views can manifest themselves in the classroom in numerous, yet unconscious ways. For example, a student whose dominate framework of relationships is that of a level playing field might view as unfair a teacher who assigns grades using a norm-referenced system. In contrast, this student might view as fair a teacher who uses a criterion-referenced system to determine how much a student knows. On the other hand, a student whose dominate framework of relationships is that of a hierarchy might view a teacher who assigns grades using a norm-refer-
文化關係觀。文化關係觀是指個人對人們相互交往的主要方式的看法。社會關係的兩個維度是該模型的基礎：（a） 人與人之間的親密程度，以及 （b） 人與人之間感知到的地位差異程度。接近程度維度探討了個人認為人們應該獨立或相互依賴的程度。地位差異維度探討了人們在多大程度上承擔了等級地位（有時稱為權力）或人與人之間的平等地位。例如，關係本質上可以是等級關係，這意味著在任何兩個個體之間，一個人總是比另一個人擁有更高的地位（或權力）。或者，關係可以處於一個水準面上，那裡有更多的平等主義、類似同伴的關係，並且地位差異被最小化。這兩種對立的關係觀點可以在課堂上以多種但無意識的方式表現出來。例如，一個學生的主要關係框架是公平的競爭環境，他可能會認為使用常模參照系統分配成績的老師是不公平的。相比之下，這個學生可能會認為使用標準參考系統來確定學生知道多少的老師是公平的。另一方面，一個學生，其主導的關係框架是等級制度，可能會看待使用常模參照來分配成績的教師。
enced system as giving the best grades to those who deserve it based upon a ranking system. In contrast, this student might view as unfair a teacher who assigns grades using a criterion-referenced system that fails to distinguish between average and excellent students.
ENCED 系統，根據排名系統將最好的成績給予那些應得的人。相比之下，該學生可能會認為教師使用無法區分普通學生和優秀學生的標準參考系統來分配成績是不公平的。

Cross-cultural research in social psychology (e.g., Hofstede, 1986; Markus & Kitayama, 1994; Singelis, 1994; Triandis, 1994; Youn, Yang, & Choi, 2001) provides the most well-developed conceptions of degree of closeness and status differentiation among people within a culture. In cross-cultural research, degree of closeness is commonly referred to as the difference between individualistic versus collectivistic societies. Cultures with individualistic patterns stress the needs and goals of the self as most important, whereas cultures with collectivist patterns emphasize the needs and goals of a core group. The individualistic pattern encourages autonomy and emotional detachment. The collectivistic pattern encourages group identity and emotional attachment (Triandis, 1988, 1994).
社會心理學的跨文化研究（例如，Hofstede，1986 年;Markus & Kitayama， 1994;Singelis， 1994;Triandis， 1994;Youn， Yang， & Choi， 2001）提供了關於一種文化中人們之間的親密程度和地位差異的最完善的概念。在跨文化研究中，接近程度通常被稱為個人主義社會與集體主義社會之間的差異。具有個人主義模式的文化強調自我的需求和目標是最重要的，而具有集體主義模式的文化強調核心群體的需求和目標。個人主義模式鼓勵自主性和情感疏離。集體主義模式鼓勵群體認同和情感依戀（Triandis， 1988， 1994）。

In cross-cultural research, the idea of status differentiation is more commonly referred to as vertical or horizontal relationships (Triandis, 1994). Vertical cultures are preoccupied with status and power. Activities, communications, and cultural rituals maintain a clear distinction among classes. To break rank is to break an unspoken cultural custom. Horizontal cultures are preoccupied with relationships of equal status. Activities or communications that impose unequal status break the assumed cultural custom of symmetrical relationships. Evidence that the degree of status differentiation within the same culture is relevant to classroom learning is found in U.S. research on epistemological beliefs. Less sophisticated learners assume a strong hierarchical relationship to experts. That is, they assume that knowledge was handed down to them by omniscient authority. More sophisticated learners are able to relate to experts on a more level plane of status. They assume knowledge comes from empirical evidence and reason, activities that they themselves are capable of pursuing (Belenky, et al., 1986; Kitchener & King, 1989).
在跨文化研究中，地位差異的概念通常被稱為垂直或水平關係（Triandis，1994）。垂直文化專注於地位和權力。活動、交流和文化儀式在各個階層之間保持著明顯的區別。打破等級就是打破一種不言而喻的文化習俗。橫向文化專注於地位平等的關係。施加不平等地位的活動或交流打破了對稱關係的假定文化習俗。在美國對認識論信念的研究中發現了同一文化中地位差異的程度與課堂學習相關的證據。不太成熟的學習者與專家有著很強的等級關係。也就是說，他們假設知識是由全知權威傳給他們的。更老練的學習者能夠與處於更平等地位層面的專家建立聯繫。他們假設知識來自經驗證據和理性，他們自己能夠進行的活動（Belenky 等人，1986 年;Kitchener & King，1989年）。

Furthermore, students’ comfort level for asking questions or accepting criticism is related to their perceived degree of closeness with their instructor. Some students feel that an instructor who keeps his or her distance is insensitive to their needs and cannot understand their perspectives. Other students choose to keep their distance from instructors, thus guarding themselves behind a veil of anonymity (Baxter Magolda, 1992).
此外，學生提出問題或接受批評的舒適程度與他們與教師的親密程度有關。一些學生認為保持距離的教師對他們的需求不敏感，無法理解他們的觀點。其他學生選擇與教師保持距離，從而在匿名的面紗後面保護自己（Baxter Magolda，1992）。

Hence, although the epistemological belief research has explicitly examined students’ beliefs about knowledge, it has implicitly, if not serendipitously, touched upon students’ views about human relationships. For example, based on interviews with college students, Baxter Magolda (1992) described how less sophisticated learners’ view relationships when they believe that knowledge is handed down by authority. Some of these learners function as passive receivers of knowledge, and others function as if mastering neatly pack- aged knowledge. A receiving pattern is evidenced when students “expect … peers to be quiet, share notes, and ask questions to relieve pressure in the class; they valued getting to know others in class” (p. 270). A mastery pattern is evidenced when learners
因此，儘管認識論信仰研究明確考察了學生對知識的信念，但它也隱含地（如果不是偶然的話）觸及了學生對人際關係的看法。例如，根據對大學生的採訪，Baxter Magolda （1992） 描述了當不太成熟的學習者認為知識是由權威傳下來時，他們是如何看待關係的。這些學習者中的一些人是知識的被動接受者，而另一些人則彷彿掌握了整齊的知識。當學生「期望......同伴保持安靜，分享筆記並提出問題以緩解課堂壓力;他們重視在課堂上瞭解其他人”當學習者證明掌握模式
expect peers to engage in a mutual effort to master material, including arguing and quizzing each other in and out of class. Mastery of the material takes precedence over comfort in the learning environment … [and] they also expected instructors to make learning interesting. (p. 70)
期望同伴們共同努力掌握材料，包括在課堂內外互相爭論和測驗。在學習環境中，對材料的掌握優先於舒適......[而且] 他們還希望教師讓學習變得有趣。（第 70 頁）

A hypothetical interaction among systems. With this background in relationship literature in mind, consider the more detailed model of the hypothesized embedded systemic model shown in Figure 2. Contrary to my earlier work (Schommer, 1990), this embedded systemic model separates the beliefs about knowledge and the beliefs about learning. Although these two beliefs were originally grouped under the title “epistemological beliefs,” what is at stake here is the modeling of how these beliefs interact between each other (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997). This portrayal also allows for the prediction of the interrelationship between beliefs about knowledge and beliefs about learning, the influence that systems of epistemological beliefs may have on classroom performance and self-regulated learning, and the potential feedback loop in which classroom performance and self-regulated learning may lead to revisions in
系統之間的假設交互。考慮到關係文獻中的這一背景，考慮圖 2 中所示的假設嵌入式系統模型的更詳細模型。與我早期的工作（Schommer， 1990）相反，這種嵌入式系統模型將關於知識的信念和關於學習的信念分開。儘管這兩種信念最初被歸類為“認識論信念”，但這裡的關鍵在於這些信念如何相互作用的模型（Hofer & Pintrich，1997）。這種描述還允許預測關於知識的信念和關於學習的信念之間的相互關係，認識論信念系統可能對課堂表現和自我調節學習產生的影響，以及課堂表現和自我調節學習可能導致的潛在反饋迴圈的修訂

FIGURE 2 A deeper look into the initial embedded systemic model of epistemological beliefs showing some specific aspects within the systems that may play key roles as the antecedents and consequences of epistemological beliefs.
圖 2 對認識論信念的初始嵌入式系統模型的深入研究，顯示了系統內的一些特定方面，這些方面可能在認識論信念的前因和後果中發揮關鍵作用。
epistemological beliefs. In other words, it is possible that over time as learners develop, there is a reciprocal interaction or perhaps a feedback mechanism among these beliefs.
認識論信念。換句話說，隨著時間的推移，隨著學習者的發展，這些信念之間可能會存在互惠互動或反饋機制。

For example, if learners believe that certain knowledge is handed down by authority, then they will likely believe that learning is passive, is heavily influenced by innate ability, and is likely to come quickly based on this absorption concept of learning. They are likely to not question authority in the classroom and to cease to try learning if they do not learn quickly. On the other hand, if the teacher encourages critical thinking and careful evaluation of expert assertions, learners may revise their beliefs about the certainty of knowledge, which in turn may reduce their unquestioning acceptance of an expert’s word, which ultimately lessens their passivity as learners.
例如，如果學習者相信某些知識是由權威傳下來的，那麼他們很可能會認為學習是被動的，深受先天能力的影響，並且可能會基於這種吸收學習的概念來得很快。他們可能不會質疑課堂上的權威，如果他們學得不快，他們就會停止嘗試學習。另一方面，如果教師鼓勵批判性思維和仔細評估專家的斷言，學習者可能會修改他們對知識確定性的信念，這反過來可能會減少他們對專家話語的不容置疑的接受，從而最終減少他們作為學習者的被動性。

Examining the exogenous variables in the embedded systemic model, namely cultural relational views, the model displays the notion that cultural relational views can directly affect beliefs about “ways of knowing” and both directly and indirectly influence epistemological beliefs, classroom performance, and self-regulated learning. For example, learners who maintain the belief that general cultural is vertical and collectivist will most likely anticipate a connected knowing relational view of the classroom. They will consider authority to be distant and will shy away from asking questions in class. On the other hand, they will be productive in group work with their peers.
通過檢查嵌入式系統模型中的外生變數，即文化關係觀，該模型展示了文化關係觀可以直接影響對“認識方式”的信念，並直接或間接影響認識論信念、課堂表現和自我調節學習的概念。例如，堅持認為一般文化是垂直的和集體主義的學習者很可能會期待課堂的互聯、瞭解關係的觀點。他們會認為權威很遙遠，並且會迴避在課堂上提問。另一方面，他們將在與同齡人的小組合作中富有成效。

We can add complexity to this embedded systemic model by considering that there are minimally three basic influences on the learners life: family, peers, and teachers. (See Figure 3.) Each of these groups could be considered a sys-
我們可以通過考慮對學習者生活至少有三個基本影響來增加這個嵌入式系統模型的複雜性：家庭、同齡人和老師。（參見圖 3。這些組中的每一個都可以被視為一個系統。

FIGURE 3 An illustration of potential social influences on the learner, highlighting the idea that the social influencers themselves are part of an intricate systemic web. tem, but more important, members of these groups have their own system of cultural views, ways-of-knowing beliefs, epistemological beliefs, and, subsequently, expectations of classroom performance and self-regulated learning. To the extent that participants in learners’ lives have beliefs that are harmonious, learners could potentially meet the academic expectations of all. To the extent that participants in this influential social network are in conflict, learners may be confused or at odds with the expectations set by one or more participants of the network. A classic example is the student who studies strategically, participates in class debate as well as cooperative groups, and thoughtfully responds to authority figures. The peers that taunt this student about being a sissy or nerd are likely not to share the student’s model of relationships, epistemological beliefs, and learning. The question is, will the student change or abandon the peers, or will the peers change the student?
圖 3 對學習者的潛在社會影響的插圖，突出了社會影響者本身是錯綜複雜的系統網路的一部分的想法。雖然，但更重要的是，這些群體的成員有自己的文化觀點體系、認知方式信念、認識論信念，以及隨後對課堂表現和自我調節學習的期望。只要學習者生活中的參與者擁有和諧的信仰，學習者就有可能滿足所有人的學術期望。如果這個有影響力的社交網路的參與者發生衝突，學習者可能會與網路的一個或多個參與者設定的期望感到困惑或不一致。一個典型的例子是學生有策略地學習，參加課堂辯論和合作小組，並深思熟慮地回應權威人物。嘲笑這個學生是娘娘腔或書的同齡人可能不會同意這個學生的人際關係、認識論信仰和學習模式。問題是，學生會改變還是放棄同齡人，還是同伴會改變學生？

The point is that in order to have a deep understanding of epistemological beliefs and their influence on individuals, it is important to develop embedded systemic models and to test the flow of influence among components of the model.
關鍵是，為了深入了解認識論信念及其對個人的影響，開發嵌入式系統模型並測試模型組成部分之間的影響流是很重要的。

This hypothetical embedded systemic model may seem idealistic and overwhelming to test; indeed, it would be hard to imagine a single researcher or a single team of researchers successfully developing and testing such a complex model. On the other hand, there are fields such as engineering and management that embrace highly complex, systemic models (Eaves, 1997; Johnson, 1997; Miller, 1984). The following are five key points of research methodology that serve as guides to what will be referred to as the coordinated teams approach to the study of embedded systemic models of personal epistemology.
這個假設的嵌入式系統模型可能看起來理想化且難以測試;事實上，很難想像單個研究人員或單個研究人員團隊能夠成功開發和測試如此複雜的模型。另一方面，工程和管理等領域採用高度複雜的系統模型（Eaves，1997 年;Johnson， 1997;Miller， 1984）。以下是研究方法的五個關鍵點，它們作為所謂的協調團隊方法的指南，以研究個人認識論的嵌入式系統模型。

The role of epistemological beliefs is likely to be subtle, yet ubiquitous. These beliefs are likely to influence how students learn, how teachers instruct, and subsequently, how teachers knowingly or unknowingly modify students’ epistemological beliefs.
認識論信念的作用可能是微妙的，但無處不在。這些信念可能會影響學生的學習方式、教師的教學方式，以及隨後教師如何有意或無意地改變學生的認識論信念。

Evidence is accumulating to support the notion that the students’ epistemological beliefs play an important role in their learning. For example, various studies indicate that the more students believe in certain knowledge, the more likely they are to draw absolute conclusions from tentative text (Kardash & Scholes, 1996; Schommer, 1990). The more students believe in fixed ability, simple knowledge, and quick learning, the more likely they are to display lower levels of reflective judgment (Schraw, et al., 2002). The more students believe in quick learning, the more likely they are to comprehend text poorly (Schommer, 1990) or earn lower grade point averages (Schommer, 1993; Schommer et al., 1992). The more students believe in fixed ability, the less likely they are to value schooling (Schommer & Walker, 1997) or persist on difficult academic tasks (Dweck & Legget, 1988). If teachers can ascertain students’ epistemological beliefs, they can perhaps adapt instruction to guide lower achieving students into higher level thinking, and conversely, they can adapt instruction for higher achieving students to help them to grow.
越來越多的證據支持這樣一種觀點，即學生的認識論信念在他們的學習中起著重要作用。例如，各種研究表明，學生越相信某些知識，他們就越有可能從試探性文本中得出絕對的結論（Kardash & Scholes，1996;Schommer，1990 年）。學生越相信固定的能力、簡單的知識和快速的學習，他們就越有可能表現出較低水準的反思性判斷（Schraw 等人，2002 年）。學生越相信快速學習，他們就越有可能理解文本不佳（Schommer， 1990）或獲得較低的平均績點（Schommer， 1993;Schommer et al.， 1992）。學生越是相信固定的能力，他們就越不可能重視學校教育（Schommer & Walker，1997）或堅持完成困難的學術任務（Dweck & Legget，1988。如果教師能夠確定學生的認識論信念，他們也許可以調整教學以引導成績較差的學生進入更高層次的思維，反過來，他們可以為成績較高的學生調整教學以幫助他們成長。

Although less empirical evidence is available to understand the role epistemological beliefs play in teachers’ approach to instruction (Schoenfeld, 1988; Schraw & Olafson, 2002), it seems plausible that teachers’ epistemological beliefs influence instruction and assessment. Instruction and assessment, in turn, are likely to influence students’ developing epistemological beliefs. For example, if a teacher requires students to recall facts without synthesis or application, it is likely that students will believe knowledge is structured as isolated facts. On the other hand, if a teacher requires students to synthesize knowledge and apply the knowledge to a challenging, time-consuming task, it is likely that students will believe knowledge is complex and that challenging projects take more time to complete.
儘管較少的實證證據可以理解認識論信念在教師教學方法中的作用（Schoenfeld，1988;Schraw & Olafson，2002），教師的認識論信念影響教學和評估似乎是合理的。反過來，教學和評估可能會影響學生發展的認識論信念。例如，如果教師要求學生回憶事實而不進行綜合或應用，學生很可能會認為知識的結構是孤立的事實。另一方面，如果教師要求學生綜合知識並將知識應用於具有挑戰性、耗時的任務，學生很可能會認為知識很複雜，具有挑戰性的專案需要更多時間才能完成。

Although potential for future research is vast, only three major areas will be discussed here: measurement, the nature of epistemological beliefs, and the epistemological belief system situated within larger systems of cognition. When one research question is asked, other questions follow. The flow of questions reveals the complexity and challenge of future epistemological belief research. For example, to consider questions about measurement, one must consider questions about the conceptualization of epistemological beliefs as well.
儘管未來研究的潛力是巨大的，但這裡將只討論三個主要領域：測量、認識論信念的性質以及位於更大認知系統中的認識論信仰系統。當一個研究問題被提出時，其他問題就會隨之而來。問題的流動揭示了未來認識論信念研究的複雜性和挑戰。例如，要考慮關於測量的問題，也必須考慮關於認識論信念的概念化的問題。

How can psychometric properties of epistemological belief questionnaires be improved? Could the answer be shorter questionnaires, questionnaires that use only first-person perspective (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997), questionnaires that ask questions situated only in a specific content area, questionnaires that focus only on a specific classroom? Or will these resolutions to increase reliability concomitantly decrease validity? For example, questions within a particular classroom tap students’ thinking about a specific teacher, a specific group of peers, or specific texts, to name just a few confounds.
如何改進認識論信念問卷的心理測量特性？答案可以是簡短的問卷，僅使用第一人稱視角的問卷（Hofer & Pintrich，1997年，只在特定內容領域提出問題的問卷，只關注特定課堂的問卷嗎？或者這些提高可靠性的決議會同時降低有效性嗎？例如，特定課堂中的問題會挖掘學生對特定教師、特定同齡人群體或特定文本的想法，僅舉幾例混淆。

What other kind of quantitative measures can be developed that measure something other than a continuum? Should frequency distributions be assessed? Furthermore, should it be expected that the specific beliefs (or factor structure of an epistemological belief system) be exactly the same across groups or would there be group (or sample) differences? How should epistemological beliefs be assessed
還可以開發哪些其他類型的定量度量來度量連續體以外的其他東西？是否應該評估頻率分佈？此外，是否應該期望特定的信念（或認識論信念系統的因素結構）在不同群體之間完全相同，或者是否存在群體（或樣本）差異？應該如何評估認識論信念
cross-culturally? Do the beliefs that compose an epistemological belief system vary between some cultures and not others?
跨文化？構成認識論信仰體系的信仰是否在某些文化之間有所不同，而另一些文化則不同？

To date the issue of how epistemological beliefs influence each other and, in turn, influence learning has not been addressed. Indeed, even the issue of whether epistemological beliefs develop synchronously or asynchronously has not been formally tested. Is synchronous development of epistemological beliefs-suggested by developmental stage models-interspersed with asynchronous development during transitions between stages? Do learning beliefs develop before knowledge beliefs, or is there a reciprocal bootstrapping developmental path between the two types of beliefs? Do beliefs about the structure and source of knowledge develop before the belief in the stability of knowledge? In other words, do individuals need to believe knowledge is highly complex, interwoven, and sometimes fuzzy before they believe in the tentativeness of knowledge? Do beliefs about knowledge contribute to beliefs about learning? For example, if individuals believe knowledge is composed of isolated facts, do they also believe learning is quick? If they begin to believe knowledge is highly complex and intricate, will they subsequently conclude learning may take much more time than they once thought? The questions of measurement and the nature of epistemological beliefs are further entangled with a yet larger issue. How do epistemological beliefs relate to other aspects of cognition and affect?
迄今為止，認識論信念如何相互影響，進而影響學習的問題尚未得到解決。事實上，即使是認識論信念是同步發展還是異步發展的問題也沒有得到正式的檢驗。在階段之間的過渡期間，認識論信念的同步發展--由發展階段模型所暗示--是否穿插著異步發展？學習信念是在知識信念之前發展起來的，還是在兩種類型的信念之間存在相互引導的發展路徑？關於知識的結構和來源的信念是否在相信知識的穩定性之前發展起來？換句話說，在他們相信知識的試探性之前，個人是否需要相信知識是高度複雜的、交織的，有時甚至是模糊的？關於知識的信念是否有助於關於學習的信念？例如，如果個人相信知識是由孤立的事實組成的，那麼他們是否也相信學習是快速的？如果他們開始相信知識是高度複雜和錯綜複雜的，他們隨後會得出結論認為學習可能需要比他們以前想像的要多得多的時間嗎？測量問題和認識論信念的性質進一步與一個更大的問題糾纏在一起。認識論信念與認知和情感的其他方面有什麼關係？

Reflections of epistemological beliefs situated among other aspects of human thinking and feeling generate more questions to be addressed. How does self-concept relate to beliefs about knowledge? How does self-concept relate to beliefs about learning? What role do epistemological beliefs play in metacognition? Should epistemological beliefs be considered the essence of executive control? Do epistemological beliefs unconsciously influence the selection of study strategies? Do epistemological beliefs shift situationally as a result of the type of testing that students experience? Can students adapt to situations requiring naive responses and still maintain epistemological sophistication? Do epistemologically sophisticated students rebel either overtly or covertly when placed in an instructional situation that demands memorization without meaning?
對位於人類思維和情感其他方面的認識論信念的反思產生了更多有待解決的問題。自我概念與關於知識的信念有什麼關係？自我概念與學習信念有何關係？認識論信念在元認知中起什麼作用？認識論信念是否應該被視為執行控制的本質？認識論信念是否無意識地影響了學習策略的選擇？認識論信念是否會因學生經歷的測試類型而隨情境而改變？學生能否適應需要天真回答的情況，同時仍然保持認識論的成熟度？當被置於一個需要毫無意義地記憶的教學情境中時，認識論老練的學生是公開地還是秘密地反抗？

These questions are only a small sample of questions yet to be answered. No matter which model of personal epistemology one ascribes too, many of these questions remain relevant. If beliefs about knowledge and learning function as filters to the mind, determining what we see, how we interpret the world, which strategies we select to learn, and how long we persist in pursuit of learning, then it would seem critical that we closely examine these filters. All the existing research notwithstanding, epistemological belief research remains at the edge of an unexplored frontier.
這些問題只是尚未回答的一小部分問題。無論一個人也歸結為哪種個人認識論模型，其中許多問題仍然是相關的。如果關於知識和學習的信念起到心靈篩檢程式的作用，決定我們所看到的、我們如何解釋世界、我們選擇哪些學習策略以及我們堅持追求學習多長時間，那麼我們仔細研究這些篩檢程式似乎至關重要。儘管存在所有現有的研究，但認識論信仰研究仍然處於未探索的前沿。

Abelson, R. P. (1986), Beliefs are like possessions. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 16, 223-250.
Abelson， R. P. （1986），《信仰就像財產》。社會行為理論雜誌，16,223-250。
Alexander, P. A. (1995). Superimposing a situation-specific and domain-specific perspective on an account of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 30, 189-193.
賓夕法尼亞州亞歷山大（1995 年）。將特定情境和特定領域的視角疊加在自我調節學習的解釋上。教育心理學家，30,189-193。
Alexander, P. A., & Dochy, F. J. R. C. (1994). Adults’ views about knowing and believing. In R. Garner & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Beliefs about text and instruction with text (pp. 223-244). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
亞歷山大，賓夕法尼亞州和多奇，F. J. R. C. （1994）。成年人對認識和相信的看法。在R. Garner & P. A. Alexander （Eds.）， 關於文本和文本教學的信念（第223-244頁）中。新澤西州希爾斯代爾：Lawrence Erlbaum Associates， Inc.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1992). Students’ epistemologies and academic experiences: Implications for pedagogy. Review of Higher Education, 15, 265-287.
巴克斯特·馬戈爾達，MB（1992 年）。學生的認識論和學術經歷：對教育學的影響。高等教育評論， 15， 265-287.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1998). Learning and gender: Complexity and possibility. Higher Education, 35, 351-355.
巴克斯特·馬戈爾達，MB（1998 年）。學習和性別：複雜性和可能性。高等教育， 35， 351-355.
Belenky, M, F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing. New York: Basic Books.
Belenky， M， F.， Clinchy， B. M.， Goldberger， N. R.， & Tarule， J. M. （1986）。女性的認知方式。紐約：Basic Books。
Boekaerts, M. (1995). Self-regulated learning: Bridging the gap between metacognitive and metamotivation theories. Educational Psychologist, 30, 195-200.
Boekaerts， M. （1995 年）。自我調節學習：彌合元認知理論和元動機理論之間的差距。教育心理學家，30,195-200。
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Press.
美國布朗芬布倫納 （1979）。人類發展的生態學。馬薩諸塞州劍橋：哈佛出版社。
Corno, L. (1995). Comments on Winne: Analytic and systemic research are both needed. Educational Psychologist, 30, 201-206.
科爾諾，L.（1995 年）。Winne 的評論：分析和系統研究都是必要的。教育心理學家，30,201-206。
De Corte, E., Op’t Eynde, P., & Verschaffel, L. (2002). “Knowing what to believe”: The relevance of students’ mathematical beliefs for mathematics education. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 297-320). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
De Corte， E.， Op't Eynde， P.， & Verschaffel， L. （2002）.“知道該相信什麼”：學生的數學信念與數學教育的相關性。在B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich （編輯），個人認識論：關於知識和認知的信念心理學（第297-320頁）。新澤西州馬瓦：Lawrence Erlbaum Associates， Inc.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.
Dweck， C. S.， & Leggett， E. L. （1988年）。一種關於動機和個性的社會認知方法。心理學評論， 95， 256-273.
Eaves, B. C. (1997). Learning the practice of operations research. Interfaces, 27, $104-115$$104-115$104-115104-115.
伊夫斯，BC（1997 年）。學習運籌學的實踐。介面， 27， $104-115$$104-115$104-115104-115 .
Galotti, K. M., Blythe, M. C., Ainsworth, K. H., Lavin, B., & Mansfield, A. F. (1999). A new way of assessing ways of knowing: The Attitudes Toward Thinking and Learning Survey (ATTLS). Sex Roles, 40, 745-766.
Galotti， K. M.， Blythe， M. C.， Ainsworth， K. H.， Lavin， B.， & Mansfield， A. F. （1999）.一種評估認識方式的新方法：對思考和學習的態度調查 （ATTLS）。性別角色，40,745-766。
Hofer, B., & Pintrich, P. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 88-140.
Hofer， B.， & Pintrich， P. （1997）。認識論理論的發展：關於知識和認識的信念及其與學習的關係。教育研究評論，67,88-140。
Hofstede, G. (1986). Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 301-320.
霍夫斯泰德，G.（1986 年）。教與學中的文化差異。國際跨文化關係雜誌， 10， 301-320。
Jehng, J. J., Johnson, S. D., & Anderson, R. C. (1993). Schooling and students’ epistemological beliefs about learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 23-35.
Jehng， J. J.， Johnson， S. D.， & Anderson， R. C. （1993年）。學校教育和學生對學習的認識論信念。當代教育心理學， 18， 23-35.
Johnson, S. B. (1997). Three approaches to big technology: Operations research, systems engineering, and project management. Technology and Culture, 38, 891-919.
詹森，SB（1997 年）。實現大型技術的三種方法：運籌學、系統工程和專案管理。技術與文化， 38， 891-919。
Kardash, C. M… & Scholes, R. J. (1996). Effects of preexisting beliefs, epistemological beliefs, and need for cognition on interpretation of controversial issues. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, $260-271$$260-271$260-271260-271.
Kardash， C. M... & Scholes， R. J. （1996年）。預先存在的信念、認識論信念和認知需求對有爭議問題的解釋的影響。教育心理學雜誌， 88， $260-271$$260-271$260-271260-271 .
Kardash, C. M., & Wood, P. (2000). An individual item factoring of epistemological beliefs as measured by self-reporting surveys. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Kardash， C. M.， & Wood， P. （2000年）。通過自我報告調查衡量的認識論信念的單個專案。論文發表於洛杉磯新奧爾良的美國教育研究協會。
King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
King， P. M.， & Kitchener， K. S. （1994年）。培養反思性判斷。三藩市：Jossey-Bass。
Kitchener, K. S., & King, P. M. (1989). The reflective judgement model: Ten years of research. In M. L. Commons, C. Armon, L. Kohlberg, F. A. Richards, T. A. Grotzer, & J. D. Sinnot (Eds.), Adult development 2: Models and methods in the study of adolescent and adult thought (pp. 63-78). New York: Praeger.
Kitchener， K. S.， & King， P. M. （1989年）。反思性判斷模型：十年的研究。在M. L. Commons， C. Armon， L. Kohlberg， F. A. Richards， T. A. Grotzer和J. D. Sinnot（編輯）中，成人發展2：青少年和成人思想研究的模型和方法（第63-78頁）。紐約：Praeger。
Kuhn, D., & Weinstock, M. (2002). What is epistemological thinking and why does it matter? In B. K. Hofer & P. Pintrich (Ed.), Personal episte-
Kuhn， D. 和 Weinstock， M. （2002）。什麼是認識論思維，為什麼它很重要？在B. K. Hofer & P. Pintrich （編輯）中，個人簡介-
mology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
mology：關於知識和認識的信念心理學。新澤西州馬瓦：Lawrence Erlbaum Associates， Inc.
Lerner, R. M. (1995). The place of learning within the human development system: A developmental contextual perspective. Human Development, $38,361-366$$38,361-366$38,361-36638,361-366.
勒納，RM（1995 年）。學習在人類發展系統中的位置：發展背景視角。人類發展， $38,361-366$$38,361-366$38,361-36638,361-366 .
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1994). The cultural construction of self and emotion: Implications for social behavior. In S. Kitayama & H. R. Markus (Eds.), Emotion and culture (pp. 89-130). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Markus， H. R.， & Kitayama， S. （1994年）。自我和情感的文化建構：對社會行為的影響。在 S. Kitayama & H. R. Markus （編輯），情感與文化（第 89-130 頁）。華盛頓特區：美國心理學會。
Miller, D. M. (1984). Operation research offers valuable tools for increasing productivity, profits. Industrial Engineering, 16, 38-40.
米勒，DM（1984 年）。運籌學為提高生產力、利潤提供了有價值的工具。工業工程， 16， 38-40.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, $307-332$$307-332$307-332307-332.
帕哈雷斯，MF（1992 年）。教師的信念和教育研究：清理混亂的結構。教育研究評論， 62， $307-332$$307-332$307-332307-332 .
Perry Jr., W. G. (1968). Patterns of development in thought and values of students in a liberal arts college: A validation of a scheme (Final Report Project No. 5-0825, Contract No. SAE-8873). Cambridge, MA: Bureau of Study Counsel, Harvard University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 024315 )
小佩里，WG（1968 年）。文理學院學生的思想和價值觀發展模式：方案的驗證（最終報告項目編號 5-0825，合同編號。SAE-8873）。馬薩諸塞州劍橋：哈佛大學學習顧問局。（ERIC 檔案複製服務編號ED 024315 ）
Pressley, M. (1995). More about the development of self-regulation: Complex, long-term, and thoroughly social. Educational Psychologist, 30. 207-212.
普雷斯利，M.（1995 年）。更多關於自我調節的發展：複雜、長期和徹底的社會化。教育心理學家，30 歲。207-212.
Ryan, M. P. (1984). Monitoring text comprehension: Individual differences in epistemological standards. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, $248-258$$248-258$248-258248-258.
里安，MP （1984）。監控文本理解：認識論標準的個體差異。教育心理學雜誌， 76， $248-258$$248-258$248-258248-258 .
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1983). Beyond the purely cognitive: Belief systems, social cognitions, and metacognitions as driving forces in intellectual performance. Cognitive Science, 7, 329-363.
勛菲爾德，AH（1983 年）。超越純粹認知：信仰體系、社會認知和元認知是智力表現的驅動力。認知科學， 7， 329-363。
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. New York: Academic.
勛菲爾德，AH（1985 年）。數學問題解決。紐約：學術。
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1988). When good teaching leads to bad results: The disasters of “well-taught” mathematics courses. Educational Psychology, $23,145-166$$23,145-166$23,145-16623,145-166.
勛菲爾德，AH（1988 年）。當好的教學導致糟糕的結果時：「教得好」的數學課程的災難。教育心理學， $23,145-166$$23,145-166$23,145-16623,145-166 .
Schommer, M. (1990). The effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 498-504.
Schommer， M. （1990 年）。關於知識本質的信念對理解力的影響。教育心理學雜誌， 82， 498-504.
Schommer, M. (1993). Epistemological development and academic performance among secondary students. Journal of Educational Psychology, $85,406-411$$85,406-411$85,406-41185,406-411.
Schommer， M. （1993 年）。中學生的認識論發展和學習成績。教育心理學雜誌， $85,406-411$$85,406-411$85,406-41185,406-411 .
Schommer, M. (1994). 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. （1994 年）。認識論信念及其在學習中的作用的新興概念化。在R. Garner & P. A. Alexander （Eds.）， 關於文本和文本教學的信念（第25-40頁）中。新澤西州希爾斯代爾：Lawrence Erlbaum Associates， Inc.
Schommer, M., Calvert, C., Gariglietti, G., & Bajaj, A. (1997). The development of epistemological beliefs among secondary students: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 37-40.
Schommer， M.， Calvert， C.， Gariglietti， G.， & Bajaj， A. （1997年）。中學生認識論信念的發展：一項縱向研究。教育心理學雜誌， 89， 37-40.
Schommer, M., Crouse, A., & Rhodes, N. (1992). Epistemological beliefs and mathematical text comprehension: Believing it is simple does not make it so. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 435-443.
Schommer， M.， Crouse， A.， & Rhodes， N. （1992年）。認識論信念和數學文本理解：相信它很簡單並不意味著它很簡單。教育心理學雜誌， 84， 435-443.
Schommer, M., & Walker, K. (1997). Epistemological beliefs and valuing school: Considerations for college admissions and retention. Research in Higher Education, 38, 173-186.
Schommer， M. 和 Walker， K. （1997）。認識論信念和重視學校：大學錄取和保留的考慮因素。高等教育研究，38,173-186。
Schommer-Aikins, M. (2002). An evolving theoretical framework for an epistemological belief system. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 103-118). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Schommer-Aikins， M. （2002 年）。認識論信仰體系的不斷發展的理論框架。在B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich（編輯）中，個人認識論：關於知識和認知的信念心理學（第103-118頁）。新澤西州馬瓦：Lawrence Erlbaum Associates， Inc.
Schraw, G., Bendixen, L. D., & Dunkle, M. E. (2002). Development and validation of the epistemic belief 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 Associates, Inc.
Schraw， G.， Bendixen， L. D.， & Dunkle， M. E. （2002年）。認知信念量表 （EBI） 的開發和驗證。在B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich（編輯）中，個人認識論：關於知識和認知的信念心理學（第261-275頁）。新澤西州馬瓦：Lawrence Erlbaum Associates， Inc.
Schraw, G., & Olafson, L. (2002). Teachers’ epistemological world views and educational practice. Issues in Education, 8, 99-148.
Schraw， G.， & Olafson， L. （2002）。教師的認識論世界觀和教育實踐。教育問題，8,99-148。
Schunk, D. H. (1991). Learning theories: An educational perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
崇德，DH（1991 年）。學習理論：教育視角。新澤西州上馬鞍河：梅里爾。
Schunk, D. H. (1995). Inherent details of self-regulated learning include student perceptions. Educational Psychologist, 30, 213-216.
崇德，DH（1995 年）。自我調節學習的內在細節包括學生的看法。教育心理學家，30,213-216。
Shavelson. R. J. (2002). Lee Cronbach, 1916-2001. Educational Researcher, 31, 37-39.
沙維爾森。RJ （2002 年）。李·克朗巴赫，1916-2001 年。教育研究員，31,37-39。
Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, $580-591$$580-591$580-591580-591.
辛格利斯，TM（1994 年）。獨立和相互依存的自我建構的測量。人格與社會心理學公報，20， $580-591$$580-591$580-591580-591 .
Triandis, H. C. (1988). Collectivism and individualism: A reconceptualization of a basic concept in cross-cultural psychology. In C. Bagley & G. Verma (Eds.), Personality, cognition, and values: Cross-cultural perspectives of childhood and adolescence (pp. 60-95). London: Macmillan.
特裡安迪斯，HC（1988 年）。集體主義和個人主義：跨文化心理學中一個基本概念的重新概念化。在C. Bagley & G. Verma（編輯），《人格、認知和價值觀：童年和青少年的跨文化視角》（第60-95頁）。倫敦：麥克米倫。
Triandis, H. C. (1994). Major cultural syndromes and emotion. In S. Kitayama & H. R. Markus (Eds.), Emotion and culture (pp. 285-306). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
特裡安迪斯，HC （1994）。主要的文化綜合症和情感。在S. Kitayama & H. R. Markus（編輯）中，情感與文化（第285-306頁）。華盛頓特區：美國心理學會。
Winne, P. H. (1995). Inherent details in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 30, 173-187.
溫恩，PH （1995）。自我調節學習的內在細節。教育心理學家，30,173-187。
Youn, I., Yang, K. M., & Choi, I. J. (2001). An analysis of the nature of epistemological beliefs: Investigating factors affecting the epistemological development of Korean high school students. Asia Pacific Education Review, 2, 10-21.
Youn， I.， Yang， K. M.， & Choi， I. J. （2001）。認識論信念的性質分析：調查影響韓國高中生認識論發展的因素。亞太教育評論， 2， 10-21.

Copyright of Educational Psychologist is the property of Lawrence Erlbaum Associates and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Educational Psychologist 的版權是 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 的財產，未經版權擁有者明確書面許可，不得將其內容複製或通過電子郵件發送到多個網站或發佈到清單服務。但是，使用者可以列印、下載或通過電子郵件發送文章以供個人使用。