“Epistemology, Beliefs and Thinking About Everyday Controversial Issues” by Schommer-Alkins Report (Assessment)

Introduction

In the recent past, a lot of research has been carried out to determine the nature of learning among students and the type of skills that facilitate their performance in school. “Many scholars have also observed that students in institutions of higher learning tend to have developmental changes on how they perform the learning activities” (Schommer-Alkins & Hutter, 2002). For example, some students may perform poorly in mathematics because of their beliefs about the subject. Presently, students are pressurized to achieve good academic performance in academics. Many higher institutions of learning have understood the importance of increasing retention rates (Schommer-Alkins & Hutter, 2002). Therefore, a good understanding of the factors which influence the success of students in universities and colleges is important. This paper aims at giving a philosophical analysis of Schommer-Alkins’ article that discusses the relationship of the variables that determine academic success. Schommer –Alkins’ article is based on research that was conducted to determine “the relationship among conceptions of knowledge approaches to learning, personality and academic success” (Schommer-Alkins & Hutter, 2002).

Analysis

Schommer-Alkins’ perspective

Personal epistemology aims at “analyzing an individual’s perception about the occurrence of knowledge; what acts as knowledge and how we can construct and evaluate knowledge’’ (Schommer-Alkins & Hutter, 2002). The conception of knowledge can be defined as beliefs that can determine the outcome of understanding and learning. Schommer distinguished four types of beliefs (Schommer-Alkins & Hutter, 2002). Approaches to learning refer to different perspectives that students adopt when handling learning activities. These approaches refer to the tactics that a person applies to accomplish a given task or objective (Schommer-Alkins & Hutter, 2002). University students were the participants in the research (Schommer-Alkins & Hutter, 2002).

Schommer developed a questionnaire that he used to examine the students’ beliefs about knowledge (Schommer-Alkins & Hutter, 2002). The epistemological questionnaires are believed to have the capacity to determine the default behavior of an individual. The philosophical assumption of the epistemological questionnaire is its ability to include both dominant and default elements of a given belief (Schommer-Alkins & Hutter, 2002). The application of the belief approach enabled the researchers to determine the student’s capacity to internalize a given text (Schommer-Alkins & Hutter, 2002).

Through the application of the belief approach, Schommer together with other researchers was able to come up with a connection between epistemological beliefs and students’ ability to comprehend a given text (Schommer-Alkins & Hutter, 2002). Since knowledge involves ambiguous issues, it was hypothesized that individuals who rarely accepted simple knowledge were likely to demonstrate a high level of thinking about adopting a given perspective (Schommer-Alkins & Hutter, 2002). The second hypothesis was that belief in learning quickly had a connection with reflective thinking which takes a lot of time (Schommer-Alkins & Hutter, 2002).

The outcome of the research proved the above-mentioned hypotheses. For instance, if individuals strongly believed in complex knowledge they would readily accept complicated information. Thus they would also adopt many approaches to learning (Schommer-Alkins & Hutter, 2002). Secondly, as many people accept the development nature of understanding, they would probably accept many approaches to learning (Schommer-Alkins & Hutter, 2002). In other words, the outcome justifies that there exists a connection between the beliefs of a person, learning, and knowledge. Even though this study did not intend to reflect on gender issues, it revealed that women had higher chances of demonstrating critical thinking and that they would adopt different approaches when dealing with various issues (Schommer-Alkins & Hutter, 2002).

Kuhn’s perception

This study has a bearing on Kuhn’s perceptions about the development of scientific theories and his arguments have been analyzed as follows. Kuhn was one of the people who analyzed scientific history. His work was significant in philosophical studies among other disciplines (Kuhn, 1996). Kuhn conducted elaborate research on scientific inventions and developments. He often criticized how people understood and interpreted scientific development and information (Kuhn, 1996). His arguments are drawn from the origin of scientific studies (Kuhn, 1996). Kuhn argues that there is a great difference between older and new scientific theories. For instance, the model of scientific research can not explain the past scientific research effectively (Kuhn, 1996).

Changes in scientific theories do not necessarily involve changing a particular theory. New theories are not just simple advancements of the early scientific theories. They are developed out of current thoughts and perceptions of people about what goes on in their environment (Kuhn, 1996). Kuhn believes that the methods used in verifying theories that conflict is not sufficient because the people who try to correct conflicting scientific theories are their proponents. Hence they can not bring meaningful changes to theories (Kuhn, 1996). In addition to this, observations that are meant to disapprove a theory will probably be found in the theories that they use to make a comparison (Kuhn, 1996). This would also not be good enough when analyzing the authenticity of scientific theories.

The arguments put across by Kuhn have faced some criticisms from some scholars who did not agree with his ideas and scientific explanations. For example, his work has been questioned for failing to make a clear distinction between sciences and humanities (Kuhn, 1996). This is because his explanations of scientific developments were not based on any meaningful scientific approach and methodology (Kuhn, 1996). Some logical positivists have also questioned his ‘’humanism’’ concept when he analyses the nature of scientific development (Kuhn, 1996). They argue that by him using this concept in analyzing scientific theories he had lost focus. His work was also criticized for being Eurocentric (Kuhn, 1996). In this case, it has been argued that his work did not recognize the contribution of the Chinese and Arabs toward scientific development (Kuhn, 1996).

Changes in politics and society have been explained concerning Kuhn’s arguments (Kuhn, 1996). Although his arguments may not have a lot of bearing on scientific principles, he worked hard to enhance the meaning of terminologies such as ‘’paradigm’’ and ‘’paradigm shift’’ which are currently being used in socio-political and economic frameworks. Kuhn commonly believed that how we understand the events that take place in the world depends on how an individual perceives them (Kuhn, 1996). In this case, how we perceive the world determines what we see (Kuhn, 1996). This happens because people adopt different strategies when handling different tasks (Collins, 2001). For example, some people may use one approach in solving a problem while others may use several approaches to solve a problem.

Conclusion

The above discussion indicates that continuous research in epistemological studies is imperative due to several reasons. For example, epistemological studies can be used as a framework within which improvement of higher education can be achieved (Schommer-Alkins & Hutter, 2002). For example, it can act as a guideline when drafting a curriculum that is favorable to the learners’ educational needs. A person is also able to develop critical thinking by using epistemological studies (Schommer-Alkins & Hutter, 2002). This would in turn help such a person to develop good problem-solving skills that can help him or her in meeting the set goals effectively (Schommer-Alkins & Hutter, 2002). More importantly, epistemological studies can help a person to improve his communication skills hence he or she can have a good relationship with people in the society (Schommer-Alkins & Hutter, 2002)

References

Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: why some companies make the leap and others don’t. New York: Harpercollins Publishers.

Kuhn, T. (1996). The structured scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Schommer-Alkins, M., & Hutter, R. (2002). Epistemology, beliefs and thinking about everyday controversial issues. Journal of Psychology, vol. 36 (1) , 1-20.