Measuring epistemological beliefs in history education: An exploration of naïve and nuanced beliefs

Abstract

This study investigates a questionnaire that measures epistemological beliefs in history. Participants were 922 exam students. A basic division between naïve and nuanced ideas underpins the questionnaire. However, results show this division oversimplifies the underlying structure. Exploratory factor analysis extracted 5 factors, separating items connected to nature of knowledge from nature of knowing. Furthermore, EFA problematized the distinction between naïve and nuanced ideas on subjectivity. Experts also reported large variance on subjectivity; therefore, these items were excluded from the questionnaire. The final questionnaire contained 3 factors focusing on the objective nature of (1) historical knowledge and (2) historical knowing, and on (3) methodological criteria. Finally, differences between school tracks and relationships between epistemological beliefs, interest and history grade were explored.

Cultural Heritage and Methodological Approaches—An Analysis through Initial Training of History Teachers (Spain–England)

“…Despite the continuous increase in studies on teacher training in history education, there is not much research from a global perspective and with solid empirical support [60]. One exception in recent years, from the Netherlands, is the work of the group led by Van Boxtel, which has advanced in more powerful empirical analyses, both at the level of methodological complexity and in conceptual depth [61], leading to the validation of questionnaires and other instruments for collecting information and observation scales having a greater impact on the research area [62][63][64].…”

“…In the statements that measure the perceptions of teachers in training about history as academic knowledge and as a formative subject, the objective, subjective or critical nature of historical knowledge is valued. Here we adapt some of the items proposed by Maggioni, VanSledright, and Alexander [67] and VanSledright and Reddy [68] from their BHQ (Beliefs History Questionnaire), following the recommendations of works such as Stoel, Logtenbergb, Wansinkc, Huijgend, Van Boxtel, and Van Drie [61] or Stoel, Van Drie, and Van Boxtel [69]. Regarding Teaching methods and techniques, works such as Gómez, Miralles, and Chapman [70] or Gómez, Rodríguez, and Mirete [71] have been taken into account.…”

Where Does Teaching Multiperspectivity in History Education Begin and End? An Analysis of the Uses of Temporality

“…In the context of history education, the notion of multiperspectivity refers to the epistemological idea that history is interpretational and subjective, with multiple coexisting narratives about particular historical events, rather than history being objectively represented by one "closed" narrative. Several researchers have proposed that such an interpretational approach to history education should go beyond relativism by teaching students to judge and compare the validity of different narratives using disciplinary criteria (Seixas, 2015;Stoel et al, 2017;VanSledright, 2011;Wineburg, 2001). Proponents of a multiperspectivity approach to history teaching often also have an ideological and normative expectation.…”

Aims in teaching history and their epistemic correlates: a study of history teachers in ten countries

“…Until the present time, several studies have been carried out in which history epistemologies have been measured by means of questionnaires (see Stoel et al, 2017 for a summary of these studies). With the aim of addressing the problems encountered in previous empirical research on history epistemologies, Stoel and his coworkers based their own study on the conceptual distinction between naïve and nuanced epistemic understanding (e.g.…”