关于历史认识论的思考:学生如何理解历史信念问卷?

IF 0.5 Q1 HISTORY
Marcel Mierwald, Maximilian Junius
{"title":"关于历史认识论的思考:学生如何理解历史信念问卷?","authors":"Marcel Mierwald, Maximilian Junius","doi":"10.52289/hej9.103","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study aims to explore the cognitive validity of a popular epistemological beliefs self-report instrument used in history education, namely the Beliefs about History Questionnaire (BHQ) developed by Maggioni (2010). The validity and reliability of this instrument were found to be problematic during the quantitative validation of both the original English questionnaire and its foreign language versions. Therefore, we conducted cognitive interviews with four students (all 17 years old) using a German version of the BHQ to gain a comprehensive insight into students’ understanding of the questionnaire and the possible difficulties they experience in answering its items. The analysis of the interviews showed that the cognitive validity of the questionnaire was good. However, some items were found to be problematic because the students showed differences in understanding and difficulties in responding. Furthermore, four overarching problem areas were identified: the complexity of terms; epistemic ambiguity; length and comprehensibility; and irritating references to the school context. In this article, we address these and other difficulties in using the BHQ to assess students’ thoughts about epistemology in history. Finally, possible improvements to the questionnaire and conclusions that can be applied to both research and practice are presented.","PeriodicalId":53851,"journal":{"name":"Historical Encounters-A Journal of Historical Consciousness Historical Cultures and History Education","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Thinking aloud about epistemology in history: How do students understand the Beliefs about History Questionnaire?\",\"authors\":\"Marcel Mierwald, Maximilian Junius\",\"doi\":\"10.52289/hej9.103\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study aims to explore the cognitive validity of a popular epistemological beliefs self-report instrument used in history education, namely the Beliefs about History Questionnaire (BHQ) developed by Maggioni (2010). The validity and reliability of this instrument were found to be problematic during the quantitative validation of both the original English questionnaire and its foreign language versions. Therefore, we conducted cognitive interviews with four students (all 17 years old) using a German version of the BHQ to gain a comprehensive insight into students’ understanding of the questionnaire and the possible difficulties they experience in answering its items. The analysis of the interviews showed that the cognitive validity of the questionnaire was good. However, some items were found to be problematic because the students showed differences in understanding and difficulties in responding. Furthermore, four overarching problem areas were identified: the complexity of terms; epistemic ambiguity; length and comprehensibility; and irritating references to the school context. In this article, we address these and other difficulties in using the BHQ to assess students’ thoughts about epistemology in history. Finally, possible improvements to the questionnaire and conclusions that can be applied to both research and practice are presented.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53851,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Historical Encounters-A Journal of Historical Consciousness Historical Cultures and History Education\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Historical Encounters-A Journal of Historical Consciousness Historical Cultures and History Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.52289/hej9.103\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Historical Encounters-A Journal of Historical Consciousness Historical Cultures and History Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52289/hej9.103","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究旨在探讨历史教育中使用的一种流行的认识论信念自我报告工具,即Maggioni(2010)开发的历史信念问卷(BHQ)的认知有效性。在对原始英文问卷及其外语版本进行定量验证时,发现该文书的有效性和可靠性存在问题。因此,我们使用德国版的BHQ对四名学生(均为17岁)进行了认知访谈,以全面了解学生对问卷的理解以及他们在回答问卷项目时可能遇到的困难。访谈分析表明,问卷的认知有效性良好。然而,一些项目被发现是有问题的,因为学生们表现出理解上的差异和反应上的困难。此外,确定了四个首要问题领域:术语的复杂性;认识歧义;长度和可理解性;以及对学校背景的令人恼火的提及。在这篇文章中,我们解决了使用BHQ评估学生历史认识论思想的这些和其他困难。最后,对问卷进行了可能的改进,并提出了可用于研究和实践的结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Thinking aloud about epistemology in history: How do students understand the Beliefs about History Questionnaire?
This study aims to explore the cognitive validity of a popular epistemological beliefs self-report instrument used in history education, namely the Beliefs about History Questionnaire (BHQ) developed by Maggioni (2010). The validity and reliability of this instrument were found to be problematic during the quantitative validation of both the original English questionnaire and its foreign language versions. Therefore, we conducted cognitive interviews with four students (all 17 years old) using a German version of the BHQ to gain a comprehensive insight into students’ understanding of the questionnaire and the possible difficulties they experience in answering its items. The analysis of the interviews showed that the cognitive validity of the questionnaire was good. However, some items were found to be problematic because the students showed differences in understanding and difficulties in responding. Furthermore, four overarching problem areas were identified: the complexity of terms; epistemic ambiguity; length and comprehensibility; and irritating references to the school context. In this article, we address these and other difficulties in using the BHQ to assess students’ thoughts about epistemology in history. Finally, possible improvements to the questionnaire and conclusions that can be applied to both research and practice are presented.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
33.30%
发文量
18
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: Historical Encounters is a blind peer-reviewed, open access, interdsiciplinary journal dedicated to the empirical and theoretical study of: historical consciousness (how we experience the past as something alien to the present; how we understand and relate, both cognitively and affectively, to the past; and how our historically-constituted consciousness shapes our understanding and interpretation of historical representations in the present and influences how we orient ourselves to possible futures); historical cultures (the effective and affective relationship that a human group has with its own past; the agents who create and transform it; the oral, print, visual, dramatic, and interactive media representations by which it is disseminated; the personal, social, economic, and political uses to which it is put; and the processes of reception that shape encounters with it); history education (how we know, teach, and learn history through: schools, universities, museums, public commemorations, tourist venues, heritage sites, local history societies, and other formal and informal settings). Submissions from across the fields of public history, history didactics, curriculum & pedagogy studies, cultural studies, narrative theory, and historical theory fields are all welcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信